Another Cyclist's Death
mrbubl
10:49 PM CST on Saturday, March 13, 2004
By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News
Veteran cyclist Gary Glickman, who had narrowly escaped death in a
bike-vehicle accident at White Rock Lake in 1991, was struck by a pickup and
killed Saturday in Sunnyvale.
Mr. Glickman, 50, died at the scene. His wife and two children survive him.
Each weekend, Mr. Glickman and members of the Mirage cycling club met at a
bike shop on Garland Road for a 60-mile round-trip ride from Dallas to
Sunnyvale to Mesquite.
Mr. Glickman had largely stopped competitive racing, but he still rode
frequently to stay in shape, friends said.
On Saturday, he and his friends met at their usual spot at 9 a.m.
They had cut the trip short because of the threat of rain and were on the
return trip through Sunnyvale when the accident occurred just before 11 a.m.
Authorities say the pack of riders was westbound when an eastbound pickup
struck Mr. Glickman in the 300 block of Barnes Bridge Road.
Richard Quiroga, who was with Mr. Glickman, said he believes a crack in the
road might have thrown his friend off-balance and into on-coming traffic.
"You wonder whether you want to ride any more or not," Mr. Quiroga said. "I
just feel sick to my stomach."
Fellow cyclist David Sywak added: "These kinds of things do happen, but it
hits pretty close to home."
Friends said Mr. Glickman lived in the Dallas area for at least two decades
and was a Boston-area native. He was self-employed in the computer field,
they said.
In the cycling community, Mr. Glickman was known as a conservative rider and
was a mentor to younger cyclists.
"He did not take risks," said Kevin Bucy, owner of White Rock Cycles.
In the 1991 accident, Mr. Glickman was seriously injured during a training
ride at the lake.
"In both of these accidents, there was nothing he could have done either
time," Mr. Bucy said.
"You can't blame anybody or the bike. It's a fun, recreational thing. ...
Anything can happen. Any time. Anywhere. That's just part of living."
E-mail teis...@dallasnews.com
Dan
Every time I finish a road ride I have that "I've cheated death again" feeling.
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>Every time I finish a road ride I have that "I've cheated death again"
>feeling.
>
Why? Do you feel the same way when you survive a day at the beach? You're more
likely to drown than to die on your bike.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
curt
more
> likely to drown than to die on your bike.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
I find that hard to believe. I personally think times have changed. At
least where I live, people are in a big hurry, on cell phones and are very
aggressive. IMHO, these times are much more dangerous than 5-10 years ago.
I think it is going to get worse and worse. It seems people are getting
more and more stressed out. Not sure why, unless you watch or listen to the
news all the time. That can stress you out I guess. Wish there were some
bike lanes around here, but there is only one road in all of Pittsburgh that
has one that I know of.
It surprises me when I hear of someone getting killed while in a group of
riders. You would think people would pay closer attention when they see a
group. Strange an experienced rider went into on-coming traffic as the
story states.
It is sad to be sure,
Curt
psycholist
"curt" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w%h5c.14392$Eg3....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Here are a couple of perspectives:
I was hit by a car quite severly about 14 months ago now. Ironically, the
docs told me I probably wouldn't have survived it were I not in such
phenomenal physical condition from riding my bike. Today I'm averaging
about 275 miles a week on the bike and I feel like I'm in as good a
condition as I was before the crash. I went through a lot to get back to
this point, but I'm probably WAY more fit than 99% of the other folks that
are anywhere near my age (48). The point being that, despite the dangers,
the benefits from cycling are pretty awesome.
When the wreck happened, I lived in a town that, ten years before, had been
a small, quiet, almost semi-rural community. In 10 years it grew
incredibly. The road infrastructure couldn't keep up. So there started to
be WAY too many cars on sub-standard roads. Add to that the cell phone
factor and it became near bedlam. (Incidentally, I was hit by a 17 year old
female driver who was talking on a cell phone and made an unsignaled left
turn directly into my path ... hitting me head-on.) Today I still go to
that town to do a weekly training ride with friends. We've abandoned most
of our old routes 'cuz they're just too dangerous now. We have one way we
can sneak out to the rural areas and even that is pretty hairy.
But I've moved to a very rural area. I can ride in a vast region where
there is no cell phone service. I rarely see a car and, when I do, I never
see a driver on a cell phone. I can do a 50 mile ride and count the number
of cars that pass me in my direction on a single hand. It almost seems I'm
in greater danger from the threat of deer charging out of the woods, or wild
turkeys (I've almost had unpleasant encounters with both).
Bottom line, I think it's very naive to think you're as safe riding a bike
on the road as you are lying on a beach (or in the surf). But if you use
some common sense about where/when/how you ride, you can reduce the risks.
And, the benefits are so enormous. I'm absolutely certain that most people
who had been through what I went through a year ago would be living on
disability and limping around on a cane or walker. I'm riding 275 miles per
week and I also keep up a 22-acre farm. Praise the Lord!
Bob C.
R15757
<< Bottom line, I think it's very naive to think you're as safe riding a bike
on the road as you are lying on a beach (or in the surf). >>
That stat comes from a little chart attached to an article about car fires that
appeared in Design News a long time ago. The chart indicates that driving is
about twice as deadly as cycling, and swimming is about four times as deadly as
cycling, on a per-hour basis. The source for the chart, Failure Analysis
Associates, is a reputable source; however, I have never seen any explanation
of methodology used to collect those numbers. It is likely that they lumped the
fatalities of children in with those of adults, rendering their chart
essentially meaningless for our purposes. But we cyclists still love to trot it
out, even as we poke fun at the safety weasels for their reliance on weak
statistical evidence.
Remember also that the chart concerns fatalities, a spotty indicator of overall
danger. The rate of ER visits to deaths in cycling in the US is roughly
600-to-1. And most of the cyclists I know won't go to the ER unless a bone is
tryin to stick out of their skin.
Robert
EZ
> likely to drown than to die on your bike.
Good question. I suppose it is because I feel that it is hard to
control the risk on a bicycle when near traffic. Maybe drivers are
harder to predict than the ocean at the beach. On some roads, it feels
more like Russian roulette than fun. More like surfing with great
whites swimming by ever few minutes.
But I do ride and I do enjoy it. I avoid the most dangerous roads much
like I would avoid swimming in riptide conditions at the beach. To get
from my house to my favorite routes, I have to travel a 1-mile
straight stretch with no shoulder, a deep ditch and a fair amount of
traffic.
Have you ever felt a bit nervous when you hear a car coming up from
behind as you crouch along the fog line trying to make yourself small?
Tanya
> more
> > likely to drown than to die on your bike.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
>
> I find that hard to believe. I personally think times have changed. At
> least where I live, people are in a big hurry, on cell phones and are very
> aggressive. IMHO, these times are much more dangerous than 5-10 years ago.
> I think it is going to get worse and worse. It seems people are getting
> more and more stressed out. Not sure why, unless you watch or listen to the
> news all the time. That can stress you out I guess. Wish there were some
> bike lanes around here, but there is only one road in all of Pittsburgh that
> has one that I know of.
Bike lanes are not going to greatly reduce your chances of death
although perhaps they will make your ride less stressful. The vast
majority of bike accidents occur at intersections, and bike lanes
still intersect with roadways. In fact they probably increase the odds
as often they increase the confusion of lane selection at
intersection. Accidents of getting hit from behind or sideswiped are
relatively rare though bike lanes should help but not eliminate those.
Pureheart
curt <nos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Why? Do you feel the same way when you survive a day at the beach? You're
>more
>> likely to drown than to die on your bike.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Hunt
>
>I find that hard to believe. I personally think times have changed. At
>least where I live, people are in a big hurry, on cell phones and are very
>aggressive. IMHO, these times are much more dangerous than 5-10 years ago.
>I think it is going to get worse and worse. It seems people are getting
>more and more stressed out. Not sure why, unless you watch or listen to the
>news all the time. That can stress you out I guess. Wish there were some
>bike lanes around here, but there is only one road in all of Pittsburgh that
>has one that I know of.
>
>Curt
>
I've been riding my bike to work some dozen years now and I think I'm going
to agree w/ Curt here.
It seems to me that things *have* really declined in the last three years or
so. I think cell phones have been a huge cause of this.
Seems like every third car has a girl w/a big dopey grin on her face w/ a
cell phone plastered to her ear.
People are looking right at me more and more yet not seeing me; seeing me
but not caring anyway and just more 'nasty' in general.
Admittedly, this is all subjective except that I can quantify that there are
more and more people turning in front of me and running lights.
Pureheart
psycholist
>
> >Curt
> >
> I've been riding my bike to work some dozen years now and I think I'm
going
> to agree w/ Curt here.
> It seems to me that things *have* really declined in the last three years
or
> so. I think cell phones have been a huge cause of this.
> Seems like every third car has a girl w/a big dopey grin on her face w/ a
> cell phone plastered to her ear.
> People are looking right at me more and more yet not seeing me; seeing me
> but not caring anyway and just more 'nasty' in general.
>
> Admittedly, this is all subjective except that I can quantify that there
are
> more and more people turning in front of me and running lights.
>
> Pureheart
>
I'll quantify the cell phone thing for you.
one compression fracture of the spine
one fractured pelvis
one severely broken hip
three titanium screws to repair said hip
one severely broken ankle
two titanium screws and other assorted hardware to repair said ankle
57 stitches in lacerated calf/shin
7 staples in ankle
9staples in hip
8 days in the hospital
4 months in rehab
one seventeen year old girl behind the wheel of a car with a cell phone in
her hand.
Bob C.
(P.S. The happy ending ... I'm all better now and the insurance settlement
was VERY nice. But I was lucky enough to be hit by someone who had
sufficient insurance. I was also lucky enough not to be killed.)
David L. Johnson
>> Why? Do you feel the same way when you survive a day at the beach? You're
> more
>> likely to drown than to die on your bike.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Hunt
>
> I find that hard to believe. I personally think times have changed. At
> least where I live, people are in a big hurry, on cell phones and are very
> aggressive. IMHO, these times are much more dangerous than 5-10 years ago.
There is an issue of perception here to consider. You _know_ that people
said the same thing 5-10 years ago, and before that, etc. Part of the
perception is that, on say the 500 block of Maple Avenue, it may well be
true that the road has gotten more congested over the years, and so more
dangerous. But, if you look at roads with the same traffic levels as a
similar road 20 years ago, I don't think the level of danger has increased.
People tend to recall things from the past more favorably in general than
things that are happening now. They always have. Here's an example:
Have you ever had a knife thrown at you by a disgruntled driver? Wouldn't
that be a sign of increased danger? I have. Once, in 1972. I haven't
had a beer thrown at me since I left Texas, in 1984. I also find a lot
more helpful drivers now than 20 years ago. It is, now, very common to
have a driver stop and offer assistance if I am off to the side of the
road with a flat tire.
I'm not saying that riding on the freeway is safe, or that riding on any
congested road is safer than it was. Dangers always exist; if avoiding
danger is your biggest concern you have to avoid any outdoor activity.
Well, lots of stuff indoors is dangerous, too.
> I think it is
going to get worse and worse. It seems people are getting
> more and more stressed out. Not sure why, unless you watch or listen to
> the news all the time.
Bingo. That is a big cause of the perception of increased danger. Local
TV competition. They need stories. Stories about highway mayhem, as well
as weather, always sell. The weather is no worse than it was 20 years
ago. Most places, it is better. But we hear a lot more about it. Same
with road rage.
> It surprises me when I hear of someone getting killed while in a group
> of riders. You would think people would pay closer attention when they
> see a group. Strange an experienced rider went into on-coming traffic
> as the story states.
It is sad, but as the story was presented it was not inattention by the
oncoming traffic. Rather, something happened to cause the rider to veer
into the other side of the road. While that may not be the case, that is
what was stated, and the poor guy who hit him would seem not to be at
fault.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |
frkrygow
> Every time I finish a road ride I have that "I've cheated death again" feeling.
Seriously???
I think you've got a _very_ exaggerated idea of the dangers.
--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>Bottom line, I think it's very naive to think you're as safe riding a bike
>on the road as you are lying on a beach (or in the surf).
Number of US cyclists killed in 2000:
693 (FARS data)
Number of US accidental drowning deaths in 2000:
3,482 (USCDC figures)
So much for naivete.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>That stat comes from a little chart attached to an article about car fires
>that
>appeared in Design News a long time ago.
Nope. USCDC and USDOT FARS data. I've never even heard of Design News. What is
it, a fashion mag? <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
frkrygow
> That stat comes from a little chart attached to an article about car fires that
> appeared in Design News a long time ago. The chart indicates that driving is
> about twice as deadly as cycling, and swimming is about four times as deadly as
> cycling, on a per-hour basis. The source for the chart, Failure Analysis
> Associates, is a reputable source;
Indeed.
> ... It is likely that they lumped the
> fatalities of children in with those of adults, rendering their chart
> essentially meaningless for our purposes.
It's not very likely that you'll ever find data that _exactly_ matches
your riding style, skill and situation.
Rejecting existing data on that basis would be like rejecting the 40,000
car fatalities per year, by eliminating those that are kids (assuming
you're an adult), eliminating those where the driver was over the BAC
limit (assuming you never drink and drive), eliminating those that
happen in cities (assuming you live in the suburbs), eliminating those
that happen due to SUV rollovers (assuming you drive a passenger car),
eliminating those that happen to Chevy drivers (assuming you drive a
Ford), and so on.
Sure, by the time you did that, driving would _sound_ a lot safer, but
would it really _be_ safer? Not really. Besides, you're cycling skill
probably exceeds the "average" by a lot; your driving skill probably
doesn't.
> But we cyclists still love to trot it
> out, even as we poke fun at the safety weasels for their reliance on weak
> statistical evidence.
There is an entire "industry" of people whose mission it is to spread
bad news about anything and everything, and they put cycling close to
the top of their list. Of course, this leads to all sorts of abuses.
Court cases are distorted because "He should have known riding a bike
was dangerous." Laws are passed requiring use of substandard
facilities, or making cycling in a ball cap (or no cap) illegal.
It seems to me that _someone_ needs to spread the good news. And I
don't think the Failure Analysis Associates figures are any worse than
the anti-bike distortions that we can read any day.
> Remember also that the chart concerns fatalities, a spotty indicator of overall
> danger. The rate of ER visits to deaths in cycling in the US is roughly
> 600-to-1. And most of the cyclists I know won't go to the ER unless a bone is
> tryin to stick out of their skin.
There's a very practical reason for using fatality data - specifically,
it's the best data there is.
Deaths are taken very seriously and are scrupulously recorded (even if
detail data on their causes are not recorded so scrupulously).
Moreover, it's easy to tell whether when someone is dead - there's
rarely an argument about that.
ER visits are much more difficult to assess. As my ER-physician
relative tells me, some people visit for a hangnail (well, almost) while
others wait until the bone does stick out of the skin. Some folks have
wonderful medical coverage and come in "just to be sure," knowing
they'll never see a bill; others fear financial problems and stay away.
The fact is, most ER visits by cyclists are for minor injuries. And
bicycling's 560,000 ER visits per year sounds scary, but isn't so bad,
once you realize that there are 400,000 ER visits per year caused by
"beds and bedclothes."
Yes, your bike is probably more dangerous than your bed. But not by much.
The best a person can do is this: start with the fact that cycling
really is pretty darned safe - far safer than most people give it credit
for. Then realize that roughly half of cycling's deaths and serious
injuries are caused by cyclists doing really foolish things, like riding
at night without lights, running stop signs, etc. Vow to never do those
things, and thus improve your already-good odds by a factor of two.
Then learn some real skills, if you don't have them. Get as good as you
can at riding.
At that point, you've done all you can do. Get out and enjoy the ride.
R15757
<< It's not very likely that you'll ever find data that _exactly_ matches your
riding style, skill and situation. >>
It is useless to get very excited about traffic accident statistics. We can
only look for some vague patterns through the haze.
<< There's a very practical reason for using fatality data - specifically,
it's the best data there is.
>>
Yes, nobody is quite certain what an injury is, so we prefer not to focus on
them too much. But this taking the path of least statistical resistance leads
to all kinds of distortions and misunderstandings. Including, an overemphasis
on head injuries (the injury most likely to cause death in cyclists) which, as
you know, can lead to helmet mass-hysteria. Sure head injuries are the cycling
bugaboo but we are far more likely to snap a collarbone, break a wrist or
finger, break ribs, dislocate or tear a shoulder, or smash teeth out (which is
often labeled a head injury, leading to further statistical confusions). People
forget about that stuff, so they get reminded in the most unpleasant fashion.
<< The fact is, most ER visits by cyclists are for minor injuries. And
bicycling's 560,000 ER visits per year sounds scary, but isn't so bad, once you
realize that there are 400,000 ER visits per year caused by "beds and
bedclothes." >>
There's another way to look at the numbers however. So there are a half million
ER visits each year. There are also a half million injured cyclists visiting
their doctors in a non-ER setting each year. But you know that one million
represents only a small fraction of cyclists' injuries. Among myself and my
friends I know our rate of injury to doctor/ER visits is about 10-to-1. Most
cyclists tend to ride out their injuries without calling a doctor or notifying
any government agency.
<< Yes, your bike is probably more dangerous than your bed. But not by much.
>>
When you fall off your bike, it hurts. Same with the bed. Bed is much slower,
though.
The real danger in cycling is traffic, the stew of mistakes that is the
American city. Cycling in traffic is dangerous, as is driving, and walking.
Traffic is dangerous because people are dangerous. A bed in traffic would be
dangerous too.
<< The best a person can do is this: start with the fact that cycling
really is pretty darned safe - far safer than most people give it credit for.
Then realize that roughly half of cycling's deaths and serious injuries are
caused by cyclists doing really foolish things, like riding at night without
lights, running stop signs, etc. Vow to never do those things, and thus
improve your already-good odds by a factor of two.
Then learn some real skills, if you don't have them. Get as good as you can at
riding.
At that point, you've done all you can do. Get out and enjoy the ride. >>
Frank, I agree with you on helmets and respect your knowledge, I even see your
point about spreading the good news, but I don't think you do new cyclists any
favors with this whole "cycling is not dangerous" bit. Cycling is dangerous and
beginners should embrace this reality at the outset. Anything that can punch a
hole in your scrotum is dangerous, end of story. If anything, riders need to be
more vigilant and even a little bit paranoid when out on the street, instead
they end up gaining these qualities through bitter experience and rude
awakenings.
Cycling is danerous, but is so great that the danger is outweighed by its
benefits--this does not mean the danger has disappeared, it is still there.
Ride with fear and joy.
Robert
Erik Freitag
> see your point about spreading the good news, but I don't think you do
> new cyclists any favors with this whole "cycling is not dangerous" bit.
> Cycling is dangerous and beginners should embrace this reality at the
> outset. Anything that can punch a hole in your scrotum is dangerous, end
> of story. If anything, riders need to be more vigilant and even a little
> bit paranoid when out on the street, instead they end up gaining these
> qualities through bitter experience and rude awakenings.
>
> Cycling is danerous, but is so great that the danger is outweighed by
> its benefits--this does not mean the danger has disappeared, it is still
> there.
>
> Ride with fear and joy.
I think you've missed the entire point. "Dangerous" is not an absolute,
neither is safety. We have to ask, "dangerous compared to what"? How
likely is it that you'll have a hole punched in your scrotum while riding
your bike [How does this happen anyway]? How likely that you'll fall and
kill youself in the shower by punching a hole in your skull [on a faucet
handle]?
Improve your odds when cycling by doing it right. Improve your odds when
showering by doing it right.
Shower with fear and joy? Sounds silly doesn't it?
In any ordinary sense of the term, cycling is not dangerous. Telling new
riders that cycling is dangerous, especially if they think you know what
you're talking about, is unfair to them.
Peter
>>Cycling is danerous, but is so great that the danger is outweighed by
>>its benefits--this does not mean the danger has disappeared, it is still
>>there.
>>
>>Ride with fear and joy.
>
>
> I think you've missed the entire point. "Dangerous" is not an absolute,
> neither is safety. We have to ask, "dangerous compared to what"? How
> likely is it that you'll have a hole punched in your scrotum while riding
> your bike [How does this happen anyway]? How likely that you'll fall and
> kill youself in the shower by punching a hole in your skull [on a faucet
> handle]?
>
> Improve your odds when cycling by doing it right. Improve your odds when
> showering by doing it right.
>
> Shower with fear and joy? Sounds silly doesn't it?
>
> In any ordinary sense of the term, cycling is not dangerous. Telling new
> riders that cycling is dangerous, especially if they think you know what
> you're talking about, is unfair to them.
Absolutely! And they'll certainly be hearing the 'cycling is dangerous'
message from lots of other sources. I was always bemused when heading out
the door with my bike for my commute home by the number of coworkers who
would comment that I should "be careful out there." They never seemed to
see the irony in their comments to me as I was setting out on a ride of a
few miles on quiet residential streets and a trail on an old RR right-of-
way while many of them were getting ready to drive 70+ mph in dense rush
hour traffic.
R15757
<< How
likely is it that you'll have a hole punched in your scrotum while riding
your bike [How does this happen anyway]? >>
Oh innocent one. The scrotum laceration can occur in any number of ways.
Smashing nonchalantly into a pothole or other obstacle with the hands lightly
on the bars, something all riders are likely to do at some point, can result in
the body being thrown forward into the stem, that's one way. Another way is for
the rider to be pitched violently forward after breaking a chain, or simply
having a chain skip over worn cogs, also broken crank, spindle, etc. In general
the cycling ballsack injury is a result of an extreme version of common
rider-bicycle collisions that typically cause knee and chest injuries (cracked
ribs, separated cartilage).
This is very common. Anything like this ever happen to you?
<< In any ordinary sense of the term, cycling is not dangerous. Telling new
riders that cycling is dangerous, especially if they think you know what you're
talking about, is unfair to them. >>
Total bullshit. In every ordinary sense of the term, cycling in traffic is
dangerous. Telling new riders that it is not is unfair to them.
Robert
Trent Piepho
mrbubl <mrb...@no-spam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Veteran cyclist dies in crash with truck
>10:49 PM CST on Saturday, March 13, 2004
To put this in perspective, you could list some of the ~75 people killed in
cars on the same day?
David Kerber
hun...@aol.com says...
What are these numbers on a per participant-hour?
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
David Kerber
@aol.com says...
> Erik asked:
>
> << How
> likely is it that you'll have a hole punched in your scrotum while riding
> your bike [How does this happen anyway]? >>
>
> Oh innocent one. The scrotum laceration can occur in any number of ways.
> Smashing nonchalantly into a pothole or other obstacle with the hands lightly
> on the bars, something all riders are likely to do at some point, can result in
> the body being thrown forward into the stem, that's one way. Another way is for
> the rider to be pitched violently forward after breaking a chain, or simply
> having a chain skip over worn cogs, also broken crank, spindle, etc. In general
> the cycling ballsack injury is a result of an extreme version of common
> rider-bicycle collisions that typically cause knee and chest injuries (cracked
> ribs, separated cartilage).
>
> This is very common. Anything like this ever happen to you?
None of the above have ever happened to me in almost 40 years of riding.
> << In any ordinary sense of the term, cycling is not dangerous. Telling new
> riders that cycling is dangerous, especially if they think you know what you're
> talking about, is unfair to them. >>
>
> Total bullshit. In every ordinary sense of the term, cycling in traffic is
> dangerous. Telling new riders that it is not is unfair to them.
If a cyclist follows the traffic rules, cycling in traffic is no more
dangerous than being a pedestrian in any major metropolitan area.
Pbwalther
>of methodology used to collect those numbers. It is likely that they lumped
>the
>fatalities of children in with those of adults, rendering their chart
>essentially meaningless for our purposes.
I think they made a sort of estimate of the number of miles ridden by cyclists
and a guess at the average speed. But you are right, they threw all the
fatalities in together. The thing is that most noncyclists do not realize that
there are different populations of people riding and each group has a radically
different risk.
The number that these people came up with that cycling is half as dangerous per
hour as driving a motorized vehicle is inflated. I estimate that it is
inflated about 5 fold. For example nearly half of the fatalities occur at
night and I bet you that the vast majority of those are people not using
lights. About 2/3 of the remaining fatalites are very casual cyclists or
children.
As a way of confirming this conclusion (that the above risk estimate is
inflated), I examined fatalities by time of the day and day of the week. I
figure that the majority of miles ridden in this country are ridden by club
riders on Sat and Sun morning. So, if these people have the same fatality rate
as all bike riders, then one would expect to see many more fatalities on Sunday
and Saturday mornings then during the weekday mornings. However, Saturday and
Sunday have approximately the same fatality numbers as the other days of the
week. It looks as if weekend club riders suffer virtually no fatalities. I
know this is hard to believe given some of the fool things I have seen club
riders do, but I guess club riders are well far more careful then normal bike
riders.
Now, I believe this stuff. But I also know I sure don't FEEL safer on my bike
then I do in my car. I guess that is why I am probably safer on my bike. I am
very aware, very careful and very alert to drivers doing stupid things. Now I
have never had a traffic accident and I haven't gotten so much as a ticket in
30 years, but I believe that I am just not as careful when I drive my car as
when I am on a bike. The car tends to lull me into complacency.
Also, that is just me. If you look at vehicular deaths, a very large number
involve
intoxication - well it is hard to ride a bike whilst intoxicated
going to sleep at the wheel - most people who are riding a bike are not that
drowsey.
massively inattentive - if you try this on a bike the first pot hole will get
you.
The thing is that cycling by its very nature is very unforgiving of indulging
in those kinds of situations that are extremely high risk. That is why
cyclists are safer then motorists. Of course, if we took all the motorists off
the road, we would have a very small fatality rate with people either riding
buses or bikes because almost all cyclists killed per year are killed by
motorized vehicles.
Frank Krygowski
>>693 (FARS data)
>>Number of US accidental drowning deaths in 2000:
>>3,482 (USCDC figures)
>>
>>So much for naivete.
>
>
> What are these numbers on a per participant-hour?
>
>
From http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
down in the "SOURCES AND SITES" footnotes, under
"{4} Failure Analysis Associates Inc, Comparative Risk of Different
Activities, Design News, October 4, 1993" :
COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
Estimates of Fatal Risk
fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003
Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)
--
David Kerber
pbwa...@aol.com says...
> >Associates, is a reputable source; however, I have never seen any explanation
> >of methodology used to collect those numbers. It is likely that they lumped
> >the
> >fatalities of children in with those of adults, rendering their chart
> >essentially meaningless for our purposes.
>
> I think they made a sort of estimate of the number of miles ridden by cyclists
> and a guess at the average speed. But you are right, they threw all the
> fatalities in together. The thing is that most noncyclists do not realize that
> there are different populations of people riding and each group has a radically
> different risk.
Yep.
> The number that these people came up with that cycling is half as dangerous per
> hour as driving a motorized vehicle is inflated. I estimate that it is
> inflated about 5 fold. For example nearly half of the fatalities occur at
> night and I bet you that the vast majority of those are people not using
My gut feel would be to agree with you, but this should be studied
before being fully accepted as a premise.
> lights. About 2/3 of the remaining fatalites are very casual cyclists or
> children.
Especially children. IME, very casual adult cyclists don't go on the
roads.
> As a way of confirming this conclusion (that the above risk estimate is
> inflated), I examined fatalities by time of the day and day of the week. I
> figure that the majority of miles ridden in this country are ridden by club
> riders on Sat and Sun morning. So, if these people have the same fatality rate
> as all bike riders, then one would expect to see many more fatalities on Sunday
> and Saturday mornings then during the weekday mornings. However, Saturday and
> Sunday have approximately the same fatality numbers as the other days of the
> week. It looks as if weekend club riders suffer virtually no fatalities. I
> know this is hard to believe given some of the fool things I have seen club
> riders do, but I guess club riders are well far more careful then normal bike
> riders.
You appear to be ignoring the group effect of a club ride, though. I
would expect that multiple riders riding together would be far safer
statistically than they would be if they were all riding independently,
because once a car sees part of the group, that same notice applies to
every rider in the group. If they were riding separately, each one of
them would have to be seen separately, causing far more chances for the
rider not to be seen, and therefore involved in an accident. Also,
Saturday and Sunday morning traffic tends to be much lighter in most
areas than weekday traffic, also tending to skew the accident stats.
> Now, I believe this stuff. But I also know I sure don't FEEL safer on my bike
> then I do in my car. I guess that is why I am probably safer on my bike. I am
> very aware, very careful and very alert to drivers doing stupid things. Now I
> have never had a traffic accident and I haven't gotten so much as a ticket in
> 30 years, but I believe that I am just not as careful when I drive my car as
> when I am on a bike. The car tends to lull me into complacency.
I agree with that, for sure.
>
> Also, that is just me. If you look at vehicular deaths, a very large number
> involve
>
> intoxication - well it is hard to ride a bike whilst intoxicated
> going to sleep at the wheel - most people who are riding a bike are not that
> drowsey.
> massively inattentive - if you try this on a bike the first pot hole will get
> you.
Yep.
> The thing is that cycling by its very nature is very unforgiving of indulging
> in those kinds of situations that are extremely high risk. That is why
> cyclists are safer then motorists. Of course, if we took all the motorists off
> the road, we would have a very small fatality rate with people either riding
> buses or bikes because almost all cyclists killed per year are killed by
> motorized vehicles.
Buses are motorized vehicles <Grin>.
R15757
(snippage)<< The number that these people came up with that cycling is half as
dangerous per
hour as driving a motorized vehicle is inflated. I estimate that it is
inflated about 5 fold. >>
I agree the number is probably inflated. We will never know how much until we
can see the methodology, and it ain't happenin'. Maybe we are totally off in
our assumptions about the study's methodology.
<< I figure that the majority of miles ridden in this country are ridden by
club riders on Sat and Sun morning. >>
I doubt this. In Denver alone, the small group of bicycle messengers here rides
about 3000 miles each day collectively. If we cut the messengers out of the
equation, the bulk of miles seem to be ridden by working class dudes on cheap
bikes, just trying to get to work or home from work. This is true even here,
with relatively massive numbers of recreational cyclists. "Club cyclists" are
just a small fraction of the total rec riders, although their sense of
self-importance often fools them into believing otherwise. Yuppie commuters are
a small subslice of the big pie.
<< Now, I believe this stuff. But I also know I sure don't FEEL safer on my
bike
then I do in my car. >>
Perhaps because your whole spiel above was based on fatalities, which provide
only part of the picture. Now let us ask ourselves: are you more likely to be
injured while riding or while driving?
There are no good numbers on this, so you'll have to figure it out for
yourself.
Robert
R15757
<<None of the above have ever happened to me in almost 40 years of riding. >>
Well it's out there waitin' for ya. You'll collect a few of those eventually.
The scrote laceration is unlikely but a definite possiblity; deep knee bruising
is much more common.
I infer from your statement that your miles/hours per year has probably been
quite low.
<< If a cyclist follows the traffic rules, cycling in traffic is no more
dangerous than being a pedestrian in any major metropolitan area. >>
Well if you look at the numbers being a pedestrian is hazardous to your health.
Still, I don't agree with your statement.
Robert
David Kerber
@aol.com says...
> Of the common rider-into-stem scenario, Dave Kerber wrote:
>
> <<None of the above have ever happened to me in almost 40 years of riding. >>
>
> Well it's out there waitin' for ya. You'll collect a few of those eventually.
> The scrote laceration is unlikely but a definite possiblity; deep knee bruising
> is much more common.
>
> I infer from your statement that your miles/hours per year has probably been
> quite low.
For several years after college I did little riding, but with the
exception of 11th and 12th grade when we lived out in the boonies, from
5th grade through college graduation, my bike was my primary
transportation to and from school, and throughout the rest of town as
well, all year around (the *only* one for most of those years). Three
years ago I took it up again after 17 years of only occasional riding.
So I have a LOT of hours on a bike, and don't recall having any of the
failures mentioned in the OP. I've never crashed from hitting a pot
hole; never had a chain, crank or spindle break; never had a chain skip
due to worn cogs; and never crashed due to a chain coming off the cogs
(it's come off, but never resulted in a crash). Just luck, or good
maintenance and riding habits? I don't know, but that's my experience
so far. (And now I've probably jinxed myself for the next year!!!)
> << If a cyclist follows the traffic rules, cycling in traffic is no more
> dangerous than being a pedestrian in any major metropolitan area. >>
>
> Well if you look at the numbers being a pedestrian is hazardous to your health.
> Still, I don't agree with your statement.
Yes, being a pedestrian in the city has its dangers, but millions of
people accept those dangers every day without a second thought except
for exercising due care where needed. That's the attitude people should
have toward cycling as well.
...
Rick Onanian
>Oh innocent one. The scrotum laceration can occur in any number of ways.
>Smashing nonchalantly into a pothole or other obstacle with the hands lightly
>on the bars, something all riders are likely to do at some point, can result in
>the body being thrown forward into the stem, that's one way.
It's Fabrizio-disapproved, but I love my 45 degree rise stem.
--
Rick Onanian
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>Oh innocent one. The scrotum laceration can occur in any number of ways.
Oh timid one. As an adult I've been riding for 30+ years. My scrotum remains
unlacerated and that's also true of the scores of other cyclists I know. At
least, no one has ever complained of such an injury.
>Total bullshit. In every ordinary sense of the term, cycling in traffic is
>dangerous.
Check for punctuation. The correct punctuation requires both a colon and
quotation marks. See example below.
Total bullshit: "In every ordinary sense of the term, cycling in traffic is
dangerous."
Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to risk life and limb by walking downstairs
to the kitchen. <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
frkrygow
> There's another way to look at the numbers however. So there are a half million
> ER visits each year. There are also a half million injured cyclists visiting
> their doctors in a non-ER setting each year. But you know that one million
> represents only a small fraction of cyclists' injuries. Among myself and my
> friends I know our rate of injury to doctor/ER visits is about 10-to-1. Most
> cyclists tend to ride out their injuries without calling a doctor or notifying
> any government agency.
Of course! The same is true of people injured working in their gardens,
walking on forest paths, and (for that matter) falling out of their beds!
All I ask is that you keep things in context. Don't look for ways to
make cycling sound extra-dangerous, without applying those same
techniques to the rest of the world's worrysome numbers. Don't go out
of your way to disparage cycling.
> Frank, I agree with you on helmets and respect your knowledge, I even see your
> point about spreading the good news, but I don't think you do new cyclists any
> favors with this whole "cycling is not dangerous" bit. Cycling is dangerous and
> beginners should embrace this reality at the outset. Anything that can punch a
> hole in your scrotum is dangerous, end of story.
You can't invent some hypothetical injury, invent a way for cycling to
theoretically cause it, and use that as justification for a "dangerous"
warning. That sort of logic makes _everything_ fit the description
"dangerous."
As Erik said, the term "dangerous" means nothing without a standard of
comparison. And I'll add, it means nothing without looking at the
absolute magnitude of risk, as well. I have to throw that in because
people sometimes say things like "Omigosh, cycling is even more
dangerous than hunting!!!!" Well, maybe so - but neither is dangerous
in any absolute sense.
That's despite the fact that you _could_ trip while walking in the woods
and have a broken tree branch punch a hole in your scrotum!
(BTW - what got you thinking about your scrotum, anyway??)
frkrygow
> Of the common rider-into-stem scenario, Dave Kerber wrote:
>
> <<None of the above have ever happened to me in almost 40 years of riding. >>
>
> Well it's out there waitin' for ya. You'll collect a few of those eventually.
> The scrote laceration is unlikely but a definite possiblity; deep knee bruising
> is much more common.
>
> I infer from your statement that your miles/hours per year has probably been
> quite low.
I've got to agree with Dave, and I've averaged thousands of miles per
year for the past 25 years. Oh, except that I have had chains jump over
worn cogs. It was a bit of a surprise, but it certainly didn't cause
any major problems, let alone any injuries.
frkrygow
> As a way of confirming this conclusion (that the above risk estimate is
> inflated), I examined fatalities by time of the day and day of the week. I
> figure that the majority of miles ridden in this country are ridden by club
> riders on Sat and Sun morning. So, if these people have the same fatality rate
> as all bike riders, then one would expect to see many more fatalities on Sunday
> and Saturday mornings then during the weekday mornings. However, Saturday and
> Sunday have approximately the same fatality numbers as the other days of the
> week. It looks as if weekend club riders suffer virtually no fatalities. I
> know this is hard to believe given some of the fool things I have seen club
> riders do, but I guess club riders are well far more careful then normal bike
> riders.
Another way to confirm the conclusion that cycling is safe, is to look
at other independent sources for data.
As one example: in http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
Malcolm Wardlaw looks at the safety of cycling. Figures from different
countries vary (and in Britain, it seems, cylcing may be more dangerous
than driving) but overall, it seems the risk is low.
In that paper, he looked at club cyclists in this way: How likely is the
death of a member of the Cyclists' Touring Club of Britain? Or rather,
how many years would such a cyclist ride, on average, before a fatality?
It seems a member of that club - i.e. an enthusiastic cyclist in a
"relatively dangerous" country for cycling - is likely to cycle 12,000
to 20,000 YEARS before reaching a 50% chance of dying on the bike!
That does NOT sound like a dangerous activity, even in that country!
The Real Bev
> As Erik said, the term "dangerous" means nothing without a standard of
> comparison. And I'll add, it means nothing without looking at the
> absolute magnitude of risk, as well. I have to throw that in because
> people sometimes say things like "Omigosh, cycling is even more
> dangerous than hunting!!!!" Well, maybe so - but neither is dangerous
> in any absolute sense.
>
> That's despite the fact that you _could_ trip while walking in the woods
> and have a broken tree branch punch a hole in your scrotum!
>
> (BTW - what got you thinking about your scrotum, anyway??)
Crabs?
--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
-- Lionel
R15757
<< All I ask is that you keep things in context. Don't look for ways to
make cycling sound extra-dangerous, without applying those same
techniques to the rest of the world's worrysome numbers. Don't go out
of your way to disparage cycling. >>
Come on Frank. Disparage cycling? That's ridiculous. I ride more than 12,000
miles each year in dense traffic. I don't have to, I love it.
Cycling might not be a hazardous activity for you or me or anyone with a lot of
experience on the bike. But beginners tend to make a lot of painful mistakes,
that's why they call them beginners. They haven't figured out the door thing,
the railroad track thing, the wet lane marker thing...they don't yet appreciate
their invisibility to many drivers. Let's have some respect for these beginners
and clue them in to the dangers of traffic, rather than sending them out with a
false sense of security. Hey just follow the traffic laws, click your glass
sidis together, and everything will be okee dokee.
<< As Erik said, the term "dangerous" means nothing without a standard of
comparison. >>
That could easily be my point as well as yours. When someone claims cycling is
dangerous, you demand "what does 'dangerous' mean?" When you insist cycling is
not dangerous, I must ask "what does 'dangerous' mean?"
Frank, you always make 'dangerous' synonymous with 'deadly' in this debate,
because you like the numbers. But 'dangerous' should have a broader meaning
than that, right?
<< ...have to throw that in because
people sometimes say things like "Omigosh, cycling is even more
dangerous than hunting!!!!" Well, maybe so - but neither is dangerous
in any absolute sense.
That's despite the fact that you _could_ trip while walking in the woods
and have a broken tree branch punch a hole in your scrotum! >>
Or your dog could shoot you with your own gun.
<< (BTW - what got you thinking about your scrotum, anyway??) >>
Hey, the well-being of my boys is a primary concern.
Actually I used the scrotum example not in complete seriousness, although this
is not a "hypothetical" injury that I conjured in my evil mind either. In fact
this happened to me when I was about 10, hopping a curb on my K-mart bmx.
Decades go by, then a few years ago a good friend of mine who has massive
riding experience suffers an almost identical injury from a pothole strike.
Upon discussion of his injury with other cyclists, it is learned that there a
few other riders I know who have suffered similar injuries. So there you have
it. Racking yourself vigorously is one of the things that is known to happen to
cyclists.
Robert
Erik Freitag
> Erik asked:
>
> << How
> likely is it that you'll have a hole punched in your scrotum while
> riding your bike [How does this happen anyway]? >>
>
> Oh innocent one. The scrotum laceration can occur in any number of ways.
> Smashing nonchalantly into a pothole or other obstacle with the hands
> lightly on the bars, something all riders are likely to do at some
> point, can result in the body being thrown forward into the stem, that's
> one way. Another way is for the rider to be pitched violently forward
> after breaking a chain, or simply having a chain skip over worn cogs,
> also broken crank, spindle, etc. In general the cycling ballsack injury
> is a result of an extreme version of common rider-bicycle collisions
> that typically cause knee and chest injuries (cracked ribs, separated
> cartilage).
>
> This is very common. Anything like this ever happen to you?
Like "dangerous", I don't think "common" means what you think it means. I
ride a lot, and I have ridden a lot, and your post is the first time I
ever heard of this injury. I spend a small percentage of my time
researching bicycle-related death and injury, and I've never seen this
category listed. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I think I need more
than your word that this is a common injury. I've experienced the pothole
incident you describe (it was dark and I didn't see it), and a similar
incident on a cattle guard (end of a hard 60 mile ride and I was too full
of endorphins to be paying attention), I've also broken a back wheel on a
railroad trak in heavy traffic. I didn't like the feeling, but my scrotum
is unscathed. None of the people I ride with have been injured. My only
"injuries" involve getting used to a new pair of SPDs (scraped a lot of
skin at about .1 mph) and a really classic spill in Maui on a road covered
with mud in a rainstorm.
If you tell someone new to riding in traffic that the activity is
"dangerous", I believe they will think that they are at significant risk
of injury or death. I don't think this is true, and I stand by my
statement that telling them so is unfair.
Eric S. Sande
That's not far from the truth. It doesn't take a traffic seasoned
super genius to ride a bicycle. Of course it helps.
But in reality almost any reasonably coordinated person can ride a
bicycle in urban traffic, with a reasonable safety margin.
Training and experience are both helpful, but the excercise can be
performed safely by anyone who cares to read a brief manual such
as John Allen's _Street Smarts_.
None of it is rocket science.
You just don't want to make basic mistakes and more importantly
you'll want to know why the mistakes you may make are basic.
Learn the fundamentals and I promise you'll never have a problem
in execution unless it's the other operator's mistake.
Yes, it's dangerous, in the sense that you're operating a light
vehicle with low acceleration potential among heavy vehicles with
far more powerful characteristics.
They have you beat on mass and acceleration but you can easily
zap them on agility and awareness.
My advice is take it easy and go with the flow, after all your
reason for being out there is to get to the objective.
If you ride safely it really isn't THAT dangerous, but you'll
be well served to know the basics of traffic riding (which you
can get easily from a website) and not assume you have it nailed
until you actually do.
Which you won't have done without at least a few years of experience.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhi...@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________
R15757
<< Like "dangerous", I don't think "common" means what you think it means. I
ride a lot, and I have ridden a lot, and your post is the first time I ever
heard of this injury. >>
Sorry, when I wrote "This is very common," I was referring to the
body-into-bike incidents in general. Sack injuries are not "common," but I
don't think I'd call them rare either. As of tonight I know 5 dudes who
suffered this injury while riding, 3 actual lacerations, 2 general smashing.
The beauty of statistics--you go looking for things and you find them.
Surely after experiencing your pothole incident and "incident on a cattle
guard" you could imagine how such occurrences could easily result in
debilitating injury? That you may have actually been lucky to escape injury in
these incidents?
<< If you tell someone new to riding in traffic that the activity is
"dangerous", I believe they will think that they are at significant risk
of injury or death. I don't think this is true, and I stand by my
statement that telling them so is unfair. >>
We have a fundamental disagreement: I believe that beginning cyclists are at
significant risk of injury, but not death. I don't think anyone can come up
with any stat anywhere which supports the notion that beginning cyclists are
not riding with a significant risk of injury.
Robert
R15757
<< But in reality almost any reasonably coordinated person can ride a bicycle
in urban traffic, with a reasonable safety margin.>>
and
<< Learn the fundamentals and I promise you'll never have a problem
in execution unless it's the other operator's mistake. >>
This is my big problem with vehicular cycling dogma, nicely expressed by Eric:
That the risk left over after the cyclist has eliminated his or her own
mistakes will be "reasonable" and "acceptable." In other words, don't worry
about it. This is an innocent notion.
Experienced cyclists (as opposed to innocent ones) adopt a style in traffic
that is based largely on anticipating the mistakes of others. Because these
riders would like naturally to eliminate ALL collisions with motor vehicles,
yes, even the "reasonable" collisions. To anyone who has experienced a serious
car-bike interaction, there is not much room left over for "reasonable" risk
for this sort of thing.
The enlightened style is more of an art. It is not an exercise in
rule-following.
Robert
Peter Cole
> Cycling might not be a hazardous activity for you or me or anyone with a lot
of
> experience on the bike. But beginners tend to make a lot of painful
mistakes,
> that's why they call them beginners. They haven't figured out the door
thing,
> the railroad track thing, the wet lane marker thing...they don't yet
appreciate
> their invisibility to many drivers. Let's have some respect for these
beginners
> and clue them in to the dangers of traffic, rather than sending them out
with a
> false sense of security.
I think there's some truth here, the same phenomenon is well known with car
driving (newbies have a disproportionate accident rate). What I've noticed
though, among my peer group of experienced riders, is that there seems to be 2
categories: those who have had no accidents, and those who have had multiples.
Zippy the Pinhead
>>Bottom line, I think it's very naive to think you're as safe riding a bike
>>on the road as you are lying on a beach (or in the surf).
>
>Number of US cyclists killed in 2000:
>693 (FARS data)
>Number of US accidental drowning deaths in 2000:
>3,482 (USCDC figures)
If you got drowned while lying on the beach, you were WAAAAYYY too
drunk.
Pbwalther
>"relatively dangerous" country for cycling - is likely to cycle 12,000
>to 20,000 YEARS before reaching a 50% chance of dying on the bike!
Gosh how much metamucil would a 20,000 year old guy have to eat to feel good
enough to ride his bike?
Pbwalther
>eventually.
>> The scrote laceration is unlikely but a definite possiblity; deep knee
>bruising
>> is much more common.
> I infer from your statement that your miles/hours per year has probably been
>> quite low.
>I've got to agree with Dave, and I've averaged thousands of miles per
>year for the past 25 years. Oh, except that I have had chains jump over
>worn cogs. It was a bit of a surprise, but it certainly didn't
>cause
>any major problems, let alone any injuries.
I have to agree with Frank and Dave on this one. I have never had any of the
problems mentioned and I have not even seen them happen except the chain break
thing. A friend of mine and I were out of the saddle sprinting out of a stop
sign and his chain broke (he is 6'6" and 240 wonder why that happened?) and he
did a header. But beyond that, I haven't even seen these things. Course, I
generally ride solo and only have over 100,000 miles in the last 10 years.
Pbwalther
>significant risk of injury, but not death. I don't think anyone can come up
>with any stat anywhere which supports the notion that beginning cyclists are
>not riding with a significant risk of
>injury.
>
>Robert
Well Robert there are 2 issues here and they get conflated.
The thing is that driving an auto is essentially a couch potato activity. It
is a means of transport though. So one can compare risk of fatalities of
cyclists and motorists as a means of transport.
But I maintain throwing injuries into the mix is a bit of bait N switch. Many
cyclists use cycling as a means of exercise. I don't know anyone who drives
who considers it "exercise". Other means of exercise also have rates of
injuries that are often higher then cycling and for kinds of exercise that
produces less in the way of health benefits then cycling.
Sure a risk of falling and road rash and even broken bones exists and rookies
should know the dangers and how to avoid the common ones which is why I highly
recommend Forester's "Effective Cycling". But I think taken altogether the
benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks.
R15757
the
problems mentioned and I have not even seen them happen except the chain break
thing. >>
There are a lot of proud Safety Susans around here who are royally jinxing
themselves in this thread.
Robert
R15757
<< Well Robert there are 2 issues here and they get conflated. >>
More precisely, there are two issues and one gets all the attention at the
expense of the other.
<< But I think taken altogether the
benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. >>
Couldn't agree more. The risk of injury, however, is considerable and is not
disappeared by cycling's great benefits. Why blow smoke up beginners' asses
about it?
Robert
Hunrobe
wrote:
>There are a lot of proud Safety Susans around here who are royally jinxing
>themselves in this thread.
You're the one that believes riding a bike is oh so dangerous so why the sneer
at those of us that know better? Or is "Safety Susans" supposed to be
inoffensive?
Look at the bright side. If one or more of those of us that disagree with you
get hurt on a bike you can always say, "I told you so".
Bob Hunt
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>We have a fundamental disagreement: I believe that beginning cyclists are at
>significant risk of injury, but not death. I don't think anyone can come up
>with any stat anywhere which supports the notion that beginning cyclists are
>not riding with a significant risk of injury.
Leaving aside such nitpicking as how one defines "significant risk" and
"injury", it seems to me that since you're the person claiming that an activity
we as a society allow *anyone* to do because we don't consider it "dangerous"
that if statistical data is called for, *you* should be the one supplying it.
To claim otherwise is like saying baking is a dangerous pasttime and demanding
proof from anyone that says it isn't. Just a thought.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>The enlightened style is more of an art. It is not an exercise in
>rule-following.
So anyone that disagrees with you has to prove statistically that cycling is
safe but you can simply mutter Zen-like phrases and that is that? I don't buy
it.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
R15757
<< Leaving aside such nitpicking as how one defines "significant risk" and
"injury", it seems to me that since you're the person claiming that an activity
we as a society allow *anyone* to do because we don't consider it "dangerous"
that if statistical data is called for, *you* should be the one supplying it.
To claim otherwise is like saying baking is a dangerous pasttime and demanding
proof from anyone that says it isn't. Just a thought.>>
I'm not really able to completely sort out what you're trying to say there
but...
Anyone looking to quantify the danger of cycling through statistical evidence
is barking up the wrong tree. Just a thought.
Robert
Matt O'Toole
> Anyone looking to quantify the danger of cycling through statistical
> evidence is barking up the wrong tree. Just a thought.
Do explain...
Matt O.
R15757
<< >r15...@aol.com (R15757)
wrote in part:
Regards,
Bob Hunt >>
No Bob. Nobody can prove statistically that cycling is "safe," whatever that
means, so it is useless to ask them to try. What a colossal orgy of
time-wasting this chasing after accident statistics. The numbers are a farce.
I hadn't thought of it as a Zen-like phrase, but now that you mention it. Flow
and flexibility versus principles and rules.
Robert
Matt O'Toole
> No Bob. Nobody can prove statistically that cycling is "safe,"
> whatever that means, so it is useless to ask them to try. What a
> colossal orgy of time-wasting this chasing after accident statistics.
> The numbers are a farce.
>
> I hadn't thought of it as a Zen-like phrase, but now that you mention
> it. Flow and flexibility versus principles and rules.
Yeah, knowledge and principles are tools of The Man...
Matt O.
David Reuteler
> Yeah, knowledge and principles are tools of The Man...
well, ixnay the The and you're spot on.
our friend is in loopy land. if you can't use knowledge and principles to
prove a point i'm truly looking forward to hearing the alternative.
we've been here before, but fundamentally i don't understand why his
definition of vehicular cycling seems to not include being attentive and
anticipating and reacting to the probable moves of other traffic. i would
never make that distinction. i don't think others do, either.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
R15757
Matt O.>>
I didn't say anything about knowledge. But we can say that, in traffic,
knowledge and principles don't go hand in hand. Knowledge points us in another
direction entirely.
Robert
R15757
<< our friend is in loopy land.>>
Of course that has been well-known for some time.
<< if you can't use knowledge and principles to
prove a point i'm truly looking forward to hearing the alternative >>
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. What are you talking about?
<< we've been here before, but fundamentally i don't understand why his
definition of vehicular cycling seems to not include being attentive and
anticipating and reacting to the probable moves of other traffic. i would
never make that distinction. i don't think others do, either. >>
Forester himself makes the distinction. Ever read the damn book? He writes a
little of reaction after the fact, the evasive turn, but says nothing of
anticipation. (Of course he doesn't say we shouldn't be "attentive.") He seems
quite disgusted in fact with the whole notion of anticipating motorists'
mistakes and riding accordingly. He calls this "sneaking." This is at the very
foundation of his philosophy.
So don't accuse me of making up my own definition of vehicular cycling, because
I am using The Man's own definition. What is your definition of vehicular
cycling, if it deviates from Forester's? If you are out there trying to stay
one step ahead of motorists' idiocy then you have graduated to a style that
Forester claimed you should never need. Calling this style "vehicular cycling"
does it a disservice, and causes a lot of confusion. It is really a more
advanced meld of vehicular style and other styles.
Robert
Matt O'Toole
> I didn't say anything about knowledge. But we can say that, in
> traffic, knowledge and principles don't go hand in hand. Knowledge
> points us in another direction entirely.
I know some pretty smart traffic engineers who would take issue with that.
Matt O.
frkrygow
> There are a lot of proud Safety Susans around here who are royally jinxing
> themselves in this thread.
>
> Robert
If you mean I've been jinxing myself by saying cycling is pretty safe,
the jinx hasn't caught up to me in over 30 years of adult riding.
Pardon me if I remain confident.
frkrygow
> Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to risk life and limb by walking
downstairs
> to the kitchen. <g>
Bob!!! Don't do it!!!
Think of the children!!! ;-)
Hunrobe
wrote:
>I'm not really able to completely sort out what you're trying to say there
>but...
---snip---
Ok, I'll rephrase it. Bicycling is regarded by most people as a safe activity,
so safe in fact that we even allow children to do it. You have claimed that
bicycling is a significantly risky endeavor. The burden of proof is on you to
produce evidence of your claim. Is that any clearer?
>Anyone looking to quantify the danger of cycling through statistical evidence
>is barking up the wrong tree. Just a thought.
How exactly does one "quantify" the relative safety of any activity *without*
looking at statistical evidence?
Regards,
Bob Hunt
R15757
<< R15757 wrote:
They should be required to ride their bikes all day downtown for a week, to
give them some sense of the underlying futility of their profession.
Go forth and paint lines, enforce the traffic ordinances--it is all very
necessary and a good and joyful thing. But the lowest common denominator, the
human factor, the most irrational and braindead drivers, of whom there is no
apparent shortage, will still be the final arbiters in traffic. Their behavior
knows no rational bounds, it is not contained by white paint on the street or
traffic law or by any sort of fixed "principle" whatsoever. Therefore, the
rules and principles are inadequate for our needs.
Plus it's all about The Man.
Robert
Claire Petersky
news:i63i5095etl9orhip...@4ax.com...
> Maybe we should all "adopt a newb" to help them out with just
> getting set up on the bike right.
I did this officially through the Bicycle Alliance's Bike Buddy program.
(http://www.bicyclealliance.org/bikebuddyinfo.htm) At this point, the
apprentice is now the master.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Email me re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)
Eric S. Sande
Yes. And I don't agree with everything in it. But you knew that.
>He writes a little of reaction after the fact, the evasive turn, but
>says nothing of anticipation. (Of course he doesn't say we shouldn't
be "attentive.")
If you were attentive and VC you'd ride like you do now. What's the
problem. Except you wouldn't lanesplit, blow lights, cut people off
and in general ride like the wheel-reinventing romanticist you are.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhi...@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________
R15757
<< If you mean I've been jinxing myself by saying cycling is pretty safe, the
jinx hasn't caught up to me in over 30 years of adult riding.
Pardon me if I remain confident. >>
Do you mean to say that you have never suffered any kind of injury in 30 years
of riding? That you have never once wrecked on your bike and hurt yourself?
I'm sure you know this is highly unusual.[1] According to a 1976 study cited by
John Forester, American club cyclists of the day wrecked hard enough to cause
injury about once every 10,000 miles, which worked out to about once every four
years on average. Riders in the British CTC claimed in a 1984 survey to injure
themselves bad enough to require medical treatment once every 15,000 miles.
Because the average CTC'er only logged 2,000 miles each year, he could count on
a good seven years or so between collarbone snaps, shoulder dislocations, or
what have you. Of course these studies are full of holes but I dust them off
and trot them out here in the grand tradition of clinging to dubious cycling
accident statistics.
[1] Depending on your total mileage. So many in the I-deserve-a-safety-button
crowd who claim to have a mountain of experience, it turns out their mountain
is more of a molehill. Often it is the case that they simply haven't spent
enough time in the saddle to accumulate the experiences.
You should be proud of your safety record Frank, when you are not riding that
is. Pride is no real friend to cyclists in traffic. It would be better to hold
the attitude "I have been lucky so far."
Robert
Max
> There is also the risk of injury from "improper" cycling. I'm an "experienced
> cyclist," I guess, but right now I am nursing a sore knee from a maladjusted
> cleat I thought I would ride until I got home. It's swolled up big!
A friend at work rode his hardtail over too much lumpy ice while
cyclecomutting this winter, gave himself bursitis. He was showing us
his inflamed sac the other day -- eeeewwww.
.max
i just wanted to say inflamed sac.
--
the part of <beta...@earthlink.net>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
Eric S. Sande
>hold the attitude "I have been lucky so far."
No argument there. Over the past three years I've been backed over
by a van, dropped the bike on ice, twice, and been doored on the wrong
side.
That's one on them and three for me. Considering this is daily dense
traffic riding, I think I'm doing OK.
Say 900 days and only one incident that wasn't my fault, that's a
pretty fair safety record for a guy that has only 35 years riding
experience and has only been to the ER twice in that time.
Both times in my twenties when I was immortal.
Erik Freitag
> Sorry, when I wrote "This is very common," I was referring to the
> body-into-bike incidents in general. Sack injuries are not "common," but I
> don't think I'd call them rare either. As of tonight I know 5 dudes who
> suffered this injury while riding, 3 actual lacerations, 2 general smashing.
> The beauty of statistics--you go looking for things and you find them.
Those are not statistics, they are anecdotes. Nasty, unpleasant anecdotes,
but not statistics. Actual statistics don't help find the things you are
looking for, actual statistics can convince you that what you think is
true is not in fact true. The statistics quoted earlier have been
collected, processed and reported by experts with no apparent bias. They
may not cover all the cases you would like, but they are the real thing
and they indicate that cycling, even in traffic, is safe by measures many
of us consider conclusive. To prove otherwise, you need the same data
collection discipline and analytical rigor. To feel otherwise, we just
need our own personal observations, filtered as we wish.
> Surely after experiencing your pothole incident and "incident on a cattle
> guard" you could imagine how such occurrences could easily result in
> debilitating injury? That you may have actually been lucky to escape injury in
> these incidents?
It is possible I was lucky. Based on your reported injury history, I'm
wondering if it could have something to do with different riding styles.
Do you actually sit on the saddle? That posture could account for
the kind of injury you and your friends have suffered. Maybe a bike fit
would get you into a better 3-point suspension position.
> We have a fundamental disagreement: I believe that beginning cyclists are at
> significant risk of injury, but not death. I don't think anyone can come up
> with any stat anywhere which supports the notion that beginning cyclists are
> not riding with a significant risk of injury.
We disagree alright. Since we don't have statistics at hand which directly
address the "new rider" question, I think we have to assume that the
existing statistics, which indicate that any given rider has a low risk of
injury, will also apply to a new rider, until we get better information.
My personal experience with new riders of many ages and levels of
commitment bears this out. But that's just me. How either of us feels
about it doesn't have meaning.
I don't think scaring new riders will make them safer. Anyone will perform
better if they are aware of the risks of their activity, and all
activities have risks.
R15757
<< If you were attentive and VC you'd ride like you do now. What's the
problem. >>
You could even say that VC provides the framework of the new style. But there
is a fundamental difference in mindset. On one side entitlement, the other side
responsibility. One side excessive pride, the other side humility. High
expectations of other road users versus realistic expectations. One side has
innocence, one side has experience.
<< Except you wouldn't lanesplit, blow lights, cut people off>>
I only ride like that when I'm delivering packages and late, even then I only
lane split rarely and for short stretches. I'd rather not do it. Blow lights,
hell ya. Half a million and counting. There is a right way and wrong way to
blow lights.
<<and in general ride like the wheel-reinventing romanticist you are. >>
Art imitates life.
Seriously, I'm just trying to stay out from under that F250, there is nothing
romantic about it.
Robert
R15757
*without*
looking at statistical evidence? >>
When it comes to bicycling and bicycle accidents, it's impossible to do so,
with or without what you call statistical evidence. Good luck tryin though.
Robert
Eric S. Sande
>nothing romantic about it.
There is nothing about getting nailed on the road that is good.
That is why classical cyclists do it by the book.
It would be better to assume that we are doing it VC because we
all ready know that the classical style is more effective than the
romantic style, given the attrition factor among messengers.
Hunrobe
wrote:
Your assertion, "It's impossible to quantify bicycle injuries with statistics",
is more accurately stated as, "It's impossible to convince *me* that bicycling
is safe, no matter what statistical evidence might indicate". Okay, I won't
try.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
R15757
all ready know that the classical style is more effective than the
romantic style, given the attrition factor among messengers. >>
Eric, two things. First of all, I don't recommend that anyone, expecially
beginners. adopt the working messengers' style of riding in traffic. That style
has the balance tipped decidely toward speed rather than safety. If you want a
good example to follow, however, you might watch a veteran messenger when she's
ambling home after work.
Second, like so many others, you are mistaken about attrition among messengers.
Sure messengers get tagged a lot, know Engine One's EMTs by first names, etc.
but the veteran messenger's _rate_ of serious injury, on a per mile or per hour
basis, is lower than any other group of cyclists. This is because the veteran
messenger has accumulated vastly more experience riding in traffic than any
other class of cyclist. (Notice I do not mean rookie messengers, who are like
those guys on Star Trek with the different color shirts, not long for this
world.) I don't know any commuters who ride two and a half hours each way in
heavy traffic, in all weather, 250 days a year for years on end but I suppose
there are a few out there. Serious racers may do the mileage but not in dense
traffic and not on ice.
Myself after almost 3000 days as a messenger I have a rate of injury that is
much, much lower than that of an average member of the British Cyclists'
Touring Club (based on that 1984 survey). But here's the catch. I ride about 6
times the CTC member's mileage each year. That means that, even with that
freakishly low accident rate, I am going to accumulate my share of injuries and
will get to know some ER techs. So after a while you get the sense there are
some dangers inherent in riding a bike, call me crazy.
cautiously,
Robert
Peter Cole
.[1] According to a 1976 study cited by
> John Forester, American club cyclists of the day wrecked hard enough to
cause
> injury about once every 10,000 miles, which worked out to about once every
four
> years on average. Riders in the British CTC claimed in a 1984 survey to
injure
> themselves bad enough to require medical treatment once every 15,000 miles.
> Because the average CTC'er only logged 2,000 miles each year, he could count
on
> a good seven years or so between collarbone snaps, shoulder dislocations, or
> what have you.
My club has been running a weekly ride for about 8 years now. At this point,
we are well past the 10K rider-ride mark. Given the average loop length is
between 28 & 42 miles, we're getting close to the 500K mile mark. The have
certainly been nowhere near the 30-50 serious injuries predicted. I can only
remember one that required medical treatment (broken collar bone). I would
guess that the total crashes of any severity were less than a dozen.
Another data point: Our club does an annual 3 day tour, with a 350 mile total
distance, and usually about 30 participants. This tour has been going for well
past a decade now. Given the stats above, we should see a serious injury every
couple of years -- I can't remember any. The same thing happens (or doesn't
happen, as it were) on big club rides, like centuries, which have hundreds of
riders going the distance. There have been accidents, but not near the
predicted rates.
I doubt that my lifetime mileage is a high as Frank's, but it's still high
enough that I should have had several ER visits according the cited stats. I
have never had a road crash of any severity. Not that I am particularly
conservative or risk averse, I have had several off-road misadventures, at
least 3 of which resulted in broken bones. Just another data point.
Of the dozen or so crashes I have seen on club rides, almost all were from
road hazards: a couple from ice, a couple from potholes/cracks, a couple from
sand/gravel, one from a dog, another a deer(!). The balance were from bikes
drifting into bikes (a couple), pedal pullout (a couple). I'd say that all, or
nearly all, of these crashes were completely avoidable. I don't accept the
inevitability of accidents. From what I've observed, cyclists need to pay more
attention to common road hazards, avoid a few risky behaviors, and work on
developing better bike handling skills. I don't mean to sound preachy, but I
can think of at least 4 times when I skidded a rear wheel on the road and
would have certainly gone down, except that mountain biking had developed skid
recovery reflexes (when I first started MTB'ing I fell from r. skids all the
time). MTB'ing is terrific for developing bike survival skills.
David Kerber
@aol.com says...
...
> You should be proud of your safety record Frank, when you are not riding that
> is. Pride is no real friend to cyclists in traffic. It would be better to hold
> the attitude "I have been lucky so far."
That's always a good attitude when on the road, whether you're on a bike
or in a cage, and may be the major contributor to why I've been as
"lucky" as I have been. I've never been in a car accident either.
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>he veteran messenger's _rate_ of serious injury, on a per mile or per hour
>basis, is lower than any other group of cyclists.
and:
>Myself after almost 3000 days as a messenger I have a rate of injury that is
>much, much lower than that of an average member of the British Cyclists'
>Touring Club (based on that 1984 survey).
Robert, you really need to decide what you believe. Elsewhere in this thread
you assert that no one can quantify the "dangerousness" of bicycling using
statistical analysis. If that is true then why are you using that same type of
evidence to show how safely *you* ride? I mean besides it giving you the
opportunity to brag about what a cycling god you are in comparison to us mere
mortals... <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
R15757
<< My club has been running a weekly ride for about 8 years now. At this point,
we are well past the 10K rider-ride mark. Given the average loop length is
between 28 & 42 miles, we're getting close to the 500K mile mark. The have
certainly been nowhere near the 30-50 serious injuries predicted. >>
The study cited by Forester dealt with club riders, not club _rides_. IOW, even
when they're not doing club rides. That could explain some of the discrepancy.
(However, we might expect more accidents during group rides.) Another
possibility is that the numbers are complete bullshit.
<< I doubt that my lifetime mileage is a high as Frank's, but it's still high
enough that I should have had several ER visits according the cited stats. I
have never had a road crash of any severity. >>
Personally I have an injury rate that is far lower than that ascribed to any
group of cyclists, or even individual cyclists with the possible exception of
Frank Krygowski. Still, with so many miles ridden I have collected and will
continue to collect some injuries. There _is_ a sense of inevitability to it.
<< MTB'ing is terrific for developing bike survival skills. >>
Even in-traffic skills, imo, because it develops forward focus and
concentration.
Robert
Matt O'Toole
> When it comes to bicycling and bicycle accidents, it's impossible to
> do so, with or without what you call statistical evidence. Good luck
> tryin though.
Ah,. ignorance is bliss...
Matt O.
David Reuteler
> He writes a
> little of reaction after the fact, the evasive turn, but says nothing of
> anticipation. (Of course he doesn't say we shouldn't be "attentive.") He seems
> quite disgusted in fact with the whole notion of anticipating motorists'
> mistakes and riding accordingly. He calls this "sneaking." This is at the very
> foundation of his philosophy.
where is this reference. i don't have access to a copy of the book at the
moment but i can get one.
> So don't accuse me of making up my own definition of vehicular cycling, because
> I am using The Man's own definition. What is your definition of vehicular
> cycling, if it deviates from Forester's? If you are out there trying to stay
> one step ahead of motorists' idiocy then you have graduated to a style that
> Forester claimed you should never need. Calling this style "vehicular cycling"
> does it a disservice, and causes a lot of confusion. It is really a more
> advanced meld of vehicular style and other styles.
>
> Robert
VC ok .. "Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of
Vehicles." drivers of vehicles are advised (by many, many DMVs in their
driver's manuals) to ...
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/vadm/vadm2-5.asp
Anticipate the traffic and environment around you by scanning ahead and
checking your rearview mirrors.
http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter08-manual.htm
Anticipate mistakes by other drivers and think about what you will do if
a mistake does happen. Do not always assume that a driver approaching a
STOP or YIELD sign on a side road is actually going to stop or yield.
It is better to assume the other driver may not stop. Be ready to react.
if forester is saying that's wrong then he is against most DMVs and what
they're telling car drivers to do and i'd say that makes him wrong by
definition. i would still like to see the remark in context. at any rate
i'm not relying on forester for implementation details. call that
Effective Cycling's Vehicular Cycling(tm) by John Forester if you must.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Curtis L. Russell
>if forester is saying that's wrong then he is against most DMVs and what
>they're telling car drivers to do and i'd say that makes him wrong by
>definition. i would still like to see the remark in context.
Actually, his comment isn't even consistent within the key sentence.
There is a major difference in anticipating normal traffic flows and
riding accordingly and anticipating 'mistakes'. The first is
absolutley normal to every half-way skilled driver and rider; the
second is riding (and driving) in fear.
If I see a car slow ahead of me as he approaches an intersection, I
can anticipate he will make a left turn. Depending on where I am, I
may make any number of small adjustments. Driving a car, it might
include moving to the right lane if I can and I'm behind him; moving
slightly to my right within my lane if I can and I am approaching him
head-on, whatever. OTOH, if I anticipate he will continue to make the
left turn into my bike or car, and come to a complete stop to avoid
this anticipated mistake, I am over-reacting and being a screw-up,
whether I am on a bike or driving a car.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Frank Krygowski
Sounds to me like you simply don't understand numbers.
--
Matt O'Toole
> if forester is saying that's wrong then he is against most DMVs and
> what they're telling car drivers to do and i'd say that makes him
> wrong by definition.
I sure wouldn't! DMVs still have a lot of stupid laws and advice, for all kinds
of things.
Matt O.
David Reuteler
well, then the phrase (VC) is, in fact, meaningless for anything but a loose
statement of intent.
hmmm.. ok.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Eric S. Sande
>messengers.
I was actually thinking about turnover rate. The long term guys
tend to ride a lot more conservatively, but I maintain that's an
exception rather than the rule.
If you've got 3000 days as a messenger under your belt my hat's
off to you. I live and work downtown and have been here for about
12 years. I do notice bikes and faces, and I can count only a
couple of folks that have hung in there for the duration.
Mostly those are the folks I see in the winter, also, beating the
clock in inclement weather.
At one point I even considered the job, in a moment of extreme
stress and disorientation, but it occurred to me that perhaps I
would not like to ride forty or so miles a day in urban traffic.
I really get my MDR on the commute.
And, yes, I can see your point about the speed/safety tradeoff.
And I agree with you that riding a bicycle in traffic is potentially
dangerous, what my argument is and always has been is that there
exist proven strategies to educate anyone, and I include rookie
messengers, little old ladies, children and bicycle retrogrouches,
in such a way that they can coexist with twenty-first century
American urban road traffic.
In your terms, reducing the risk to an acceptable level.
frkrygow
> Do you mean to say that you have never suffered any kind of injury in 30 years
> of riding? That you have never once wrecked on your bike and hurt yourself?
I started adult cycling in 1972. I typically do about 2000 to 2500 per
year. Before that, except for a brief break in college, I rode pretty
much daily. I had a big paper route that I delivered by bike.
So far, the count of moving falls on the road since 1972 is: one.
About five years ago, riding home from work down a super-steep (probably
20% grade) little-used road in winter, I tried turning to avoid some
glass. My front wheel slipped out on the salt & gravel. I was going
about 3 mph. I scraped my knee.
My previous injury was in 1972. It was in a parking lot, not on the
road. I fell and scraped my palms.
Beyond that, the last time I hurt myself falling from a bike was when I
was a kid - more scrapes, nothing remotely serious.
As an adult, I've fallen while standing waiting at a traffic light -
that's embarrassing. I've fallen quite a few times off road, riding my
mountain bike, but I've always caught myself one way or another. I've
never hurt myself but for those two incidents.
I've ridden in at least four countries, hundreds of cities, speeds over
50 mph, countless centuries and one double century. One coast-to-coast
tour and lots of shorter tours. I've done a tiny amount of road racing,
some time trialing, although I don't do those any more.
> I'm sure you know this is highly unusual.
I've come to realize I'm better than average. And maybe someday I will
get hurt a bit. But I don't worry about it. Instead, I sometimes
visualize something I saw on tour.
We were bicycling across Ireland, leaving some little town, riding past
a cemetery. Riding toward us was a pretty, grey-haired, grandmotherly
woman. She was dressed in a conservative dress and sensible high-heeled
shoes, pedaling with a smile for us. In her basket was a bunch of
flowers, apparently to put on a loved one's grave.
If this seventy-something-year-old woman wasn't afraid of riding her
bike, how can I be?
--
-------------+
frkrygow
> PbWalther wrote in part:
>
> << But I think taken altogether the
> benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. >>
>
> Couldn't agree more. The risk of injury, however, is considerable and is not
> disappeared by cycling's great benefits. Why blow smoke up beginners' asses
> about it?
Saying that cycling is not very dangerous is NOT deluding anybody.
Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the available data.
Or else they MUST go around saying that playing tag is dangerous;
playing basketball is dangerous; touch football is dangerous; climbing
stairs is dangerous; ladders are dangerous; driving is dangerous... in
fact, they must say the list of "dangerous" things people do routinely
is almost without end!
In other words, "dangerous" has no practical meaning.
frkrygow
> They should be required to ride their bikes all day downtown for a week, to
> give them some sense of the underlying futility of their profession.
>
> Go forth and paint lines, enforce the traffic ordinances--it is all very
> necessary and a good and joyful thing. But the lowest common denominator, the
> human factor, the most irrational and braindead drivers, of whom there is no
> apparent shortage, will still be the final arbiters in traffic. Their behavior
> knows no rational bounds, it is not contained by white paint on the street or
> traffic law or by any sort of fixed "principle" whatsoever. Therefore, the
> rules and principles are inadequate for our needs.
Oh good grief.
By the same token, there are obviously people running around who can't
understand numbers, who don't know what "percentages" or "odds" or
"interest rates" really mean. Do we therefore tell elementary school
math teachers that their profession is futile?
Traffic engineering is a somewhat subtle blend of science and art.
Engineers need to be design facilities based on people's natural
instincts and reactions as well the necessity of efficiently moving traffic.
Sometimes engineers make mistakes. And some lunkheads will always be
doing things like riding or driving through red lights, ignoring lane
markings, and the like. But they're not much different than the
lunkheads who run up big debts on their credit cards, because they don't
understand "18% per year." They make the mistake, they get caught, they
pay the price.
Meanwhile, people who play by the rules do much better. The rules work
for them. In the case of traffic, that's because traffic engineering
works.
It usually even saves the necks of the lunkheads.
Pbwalther
>group of cyclists, or even individual cyclists with the possible exception of
>Frank Krygowski. Still, with so many miles ridden I have collected
>and will
>continue to collect some injuries. There _is_ a sense of inevitability to it.
Maybe to you. But it could well be your style of riding. If you like to push
the envelope and do it often enough, sure you are going to have an accident. I
don't know about you, but I have seen people who always dive into every corner
like it is a criterium and the streets are closed to traffic (only they
aren't).
But if you know how to handle yourself in traffic and are careful and don't
take chances, you can ride well over 100,000 miles and not get a scratch.
RobertH
> R15757 wrote, about traffic engineers:
>
> > They should be required to ride their bikes all day downtown for a week, to
> > give them some sense of the underlying futility of their profession.
> >
> > Go forth and paint lines, enforce the traffic ordinances--it is all very
> > necessary and a good and joyful thing. But the lowest common denominator, the
> > human factor, the most irrational and braindead drivers, of whom there is no
> > apparent shortage, will still be the final arbiters in traffic. Their behavior
> > knows no rational bounds, it is not contained by white paint on the street or
> > traffic law or by any sort of fixed "principle" whatsoever. Therefore, the
> > rules and principles are inadequate for our needs.
>
> doing things like riding or driving through red lights, ignoring lane
> markings, and the like. But they're not much different than the
> lunkheads who run up big debts on their credit cards, because they don't
> understand "18% per year." They make the mistake, they get caught, they
> pay the price.
Other folks tend to pay the price too.
Some lunkhead just blasted through a red light and ran down a lawful
cyclist who was moving through on the green. That cyclist could have
prevented such carnage with a more realistic attitude about traffic
and traffic rules.
Robert
RobertH
> ...The statistics quoted earlier have been
> collected, processed and reported by experts with no apparent bias. They
> may not cover all the cases you would like, but they are the real thing
> and they indicate that cycling, even in traffic, is safe by measures many
> of us consider conclusive. To prove otherwise, you need the same data
> collection discipline and analytical rigor. To feel otherwise, we just
> need our own personal observations, filtered as we wish.
No, Erik, those statistics could have been pulled straight out the
crack of somebody's ass for all you know. Maybe some dude had a
deadline and it was 3am and he made some shit up, you don't know. Only
the people at Failure Analysis know and I guess they ain't talkin.
Keep in mind this chart was prepared for an article about car fires
and had nothing to do with cycling. It's ridiculous how we've all
fallen in love with that chart.
> > We have a fundamental disagreement: I believe that beginning cyclists are at
> > significant risk of injury, but not death. I don't think anyone can come up
> > with any stat anywhere which supports the notion that beginning cyclists are
> > not riding with a significant risk of injury.
>
> We disagree alright. Since we don't have statistics at hand which directly
> address the "new rider" question, I think we have to assume that the
> existing statistics, which indicate that any given rider has a low risk of
> injury, will also apply to a new rider, until we get better information.
> My personal experience with new riders of many ages and levels of
> commitment bears this out. But that's just me. How either of us feels
> about it doesn't have meaning.
>
> I don't think scaring new riders will make them safer. Anyone will perform
> better if they are aware of the risks of their activity, and all
> activities have risks.
Even Forester's stats show that experienced riders are at far less
risk for accidents and injuries than beginners, 80% is his figure I
believe. This is confirmed by my own experience and others.
Robert
Curtis L. Russell
>That cyclist could have
>prevented such carnage with a more realistic attitude about traffic
>and traffic rules.
I think avoided is a better word than prevented. And 'could' is best
replaced with 'might'. You sound like a safety instructor in the
serviceI once had to deal with (an E7 handed trhe job because he
served no real purpose operationally). He insisted that you can
avoid/prevent all accidents unilaterally. When I asked him about
several situations (how do you prevent the drunk from crossing the
yellow line and hitting you head on - observation isn't going to pick
up all drunks), he actually ended up putting his thumb under his E-7
lapel pins and pushing them at me (a lowly E6 and actually in ops).
When people reflexively insist that something could be done if just
the other person had done 'something', they end up losing credibility
IMO.
Not all accidents can be prevented or avoided by unilateral actions.
Many can, maybe most, but not all. Not even by remaining at home with
the covers over your head.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cur...@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
<2b4m501j20922a58g...@4ax.com>:
>>That cyclist could have
>>prevented such carnage with a more realistic attitude about traffic
>>and traffic rules.
> I think avoided is a better word than prevented. And 'could' is best
>replaced with 'might'.
I'm no expert, but I think you might be missing some irony there.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Zoot Katz
<1c4k50ttkvjekg5o2...@4ax.com>,
>
>If I see a car slow ahead of me as he approaches an intersection, I
>can anticipate he will make a left turn.
BANG!
It was a pedestrian.
Not what you were anticipating, eh.
--
zk
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>BANG!
>It was a pedestrian.
>Not what you were anticipating, eh.
The above makes sense to you? Or are the drugs kicking in early?
You don't anticipate that an object exists (well, absent drugs or on a
metaphysical retreat or involved in a sophomoric discussion in
college), you observe them. Based on the observed actions of that
object, whether a pedestrian, bicyclist or auto, you anticipate their
actions, based on your past experience with similar objects and
sequential observations of the current object's actions. Is that hard
for you to follow? If it is, please don't play in traffic with the
grown-ups.
Zoot Katz
<pobm505431bkiav1d...@4ax.com>,
>The above makes sense to you? Or are the drugs kicking in early?
>
>You don't anticipate that an object exists (well, absent drugs or on a
>metaphysical retreat or involved in a sophomoric discussion in
>college), you observe them.
And when you're looking for something specific, unexpected objects are
less likely to be noticed.
You figured they're slowing to turn left so swing around to pass them.
You're certain that there wasn't somebody's pet or person in a
wheelchair in front of the slowing car?
--
zk
frkrygow
> "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message news:<405a...@news.ysu.edu>...
>
>>Sometimes engineers make mistakes. And some lunkheads will always be
>>doing things like riding or driving through red lights, ignoring lane
>>markings, and the like. But they're not much different than the
>>lunkheads who run up big debts on their credit cards, because they don't
>>understand "18% per year." They make the mistake, they get caught, they
>>pay the price.
>><snip>
>
>
> Other folks tend to pay the price too.
>
> Some lunkhead just blasted through a red light and ran down a lawful
> cyclist who was moving through on the green. That cyclist could have
> prevented such carnage with a more realistic attitude about traffic
> and traffic rules.
I'm not sure what you mean by "more realistic attitude." Personally, I
don't assume everyone will always obey the traffic rules. I ride
defensively, thinking about how I'd avoid each potential mistaken move.
I set myself up with lane position, hands on brake levers, etc. ready
to react if necessary.
But it's almost never necessary. That's because the rules of the road
_do_ work very, very well. They work so well that only very few
mistakes actually cause crashes.
I sometimes worry about the crew that claims the rules are worthless.
Seems to me those are the folks most likely to ignore the rules - and
cause trouble not only for themselves, but for the rest of us.
Hunrobe
wrote:
>I'm no expert, but I think you might be missing some irony there.
>
What irony? Robert started out by saying that bicycling is "dangerous" and when
pointed to statistics that show it is much less risky than any number of other
"safe" activities, he said the dangers of bicycling can't be quantified by
statistics. Then he used statistics to prove what a safe rider *he* is. Also in
this thread, he stated that he routinely disregards traffic regulations when
he's "delivering packages and running late". Now he's telling us we can only be
safe if we are attentive and keep a close watch for people that are...
disobeying traffic regulations. Go figure.
On further reflection, you're right. There is a certain irony at work. I don't
think it's intentional though. <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Just zis Guy, you know?
message <20040320002417...@mb-m26.aol.com>:
>There is a certain irony at work. I don't
>think it's intentional though. <g>
You could be right - I thought the statement "Some lunkhead just
blasted through a red light and ran down a lawful cyclist who was
moving through on the green. That cyclist could have prevented such
carnage with a more realistic attitude about traffic and traffic
rules" was about as ironic as you could get.
Sure, blame the cyclist for being there...
R15757
> He writes a
> little of reaction after the fact, the evasive turn, but says nothing of
> anticipation. (Of course he doesn't say we shouldn't be "attentive.") He
seems
> quite disgusted in fact with the whole notion of anticipating motorists'
> mistakes and riding accordingly. He calls this "sneaking." This is at the
very
> foundation of his philosophy.
where is this reference. i don't have access to a copy of the book at the
moment but i can get one. >>
I let somebody "borrow" my copy; went to the library to get one but found the
only available copy must be retrieved from a university library 100 miles
north. I have some notes though. I believe the reference can be found in or
near the section on the Uniform Vehicle Code which starts on p. 150 (of
Effective Cycling, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984 edition). On p. 153 he writes
that cyclists should simply adopt his principles and "be confident that most
drivers will cooperate." That's about the extent of his advice when it comes to
anticipating motorists' mistakes. Taking extra-vehicular measures, he writes,
is only thought necessary by those who have been brainwashed by bike safety
programs and other "propaganda," the purpose of which is "to persuade cyclists
to adopt certain cycling styles and to use certain routes" (p. 156).
There is no single reference that covers this. This is a theme throughout
Effective Cycling.
<< VC ok .. "Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of
Vehicles." drivers of vehicles are advised (by many, many DMVs in their
driver's manuals) to ...
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/drivers/vadm/vadm2-5.asp
Anticipate the traffic and environment around you by scanning ahead and
checking your rearview mirrors. <snip defensive driiving refereneces>>
You really should read the book before you make assumptions about what is in
it. What you are describing above is defensive driving ideology, like you said
it's standard fare at DMVs and driver ed classes across the nation. It is,
however, conspicuously absent in Effective Cycling. What I am advocating is
essentially a more extreme version of defensive driving ideology for cyclists.
Forester argues against the defensive mindset, instead preaching assertiveness.
Defensive driving ideology is only for dupes in Forester's little world.
So cyclists are supposed to act like vehicle drivers, but vehicle drivers are
taught defensive driving ideology, while Forester preaches something that is
fundamentally opposed to this ideology. It doesn't make any sense to me, and
I'm glad to see it doesn't make any sense to you either.
Robert
R15757
when
Bob: "risky" or deadly? What does "risky" mean to you?
<<... than any number of other
"safe" activities, he said the dangers of bicycling can't be quantified by
statistics. Then he used statistics to prove what a safe rider *he* is.>>
Everybody else was flashing their little safety badges. You can use "stats" to
approximate your individual rate of accident and injury. This might be a way to
show how "safe" or "dangerous" cycling is for that individual, based on their
own personal style, experience, location, etc.
<<Also in
this thread, he stated that he routinely disregards traffic regulations when
he's "delivering packages and running late". Now he's telling us we can only be
safe if we are attentive and keep a close watch for people that are...
disobeying traffic regulations. Go figure.>>
I go through green lights and red lights with the exact same mindset.
Robert
R15757
<< I'm not sure what you mean by "more realistic attitude." Personally, I
don't assume everyone will always obey the traffic rules. I ride
defensively, thinking about how I'd avoid each potential mistaken move.
I set myself up with lane position, hands on brake levers, etc. ready
to react if necessary. >>
Now I'm confused. Is cycling dangerous or not? Why are you taking these
measures? What is your fear? Why is fear governing your actions? You said it
yourself: "It is almost never necessary." So why bother.
Because getting hit is a possibility, and there is no "acceptable" risk for
being smacked by a car. That is why you and I do the things we do when we go
out into traffic.
Is it possible we agree about the danger of riding in traffic? Why don't you
come clean.
<< I sometimes worry about the crew that claims the rules are worthless. >>
Which "crew" is that? If you think I wrote that you need to read more
carefully.
Robert