| | Re: logic speeding away
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
> party, and yes, inattention is a mistake.
These collisions tend to involve simultaneous mistakes
from both parties and one of the mistakes is almost always
inattention. It takes two to tango. If we can get real about
the nature of these snafus we might figure out how to
avoid them.
> But it is certainly not the
> only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
> zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
> tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
> vehicular cycling principle.
I know--classic stuff. Amazing how you guys always list these
great reasons to ride left, but always seem to leave out the
most important reasons. It's like there is a chunk of your
brain missing.
> > And messengers
> > typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
> > get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
>
> I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> through the eyes of a bike messenger.
You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.
But, first of all, I actually became a messenger relatively
late in my life as a bicyclist. I had already reeled off about
100,000 miles as a century rider, tourist, racer, and commuter.
I was a messenger for 15 years and also commuted
by bike every day for almost 20 years, year-round.
I've seen it from all sides.
And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
anyway. Even rookie messengers in their first few years
probably do more 'vehicular cycling' than 90% of self-styled
'vehicular cyclists' accomplish in their entire lives.
Messengers earn an understanding of traffic because
they are out in it all the time using a variety of styles
and techniques.
> Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
> on their bikes in city traffic.
Call it 30. About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
Sorry, Charlie.
> If they are to make an adequate
> living, they're forced to routinely violate traffic laws.
> Their long
> hours of practice give them skills to (generally) get away with
> illegal tactics, and their "adrenalin junkie" attitudes help them
> enjoy the risk they impose on themselves. I can see how such a
> character would feel that rules are unimportant, and traffic is
> dangerous.
Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
as evidence that cycling is massively safe. And yet,
such characters still have a respect for the dangers of traffic.
It's not hard to see the cause-and-effect! (Or is it?)
> But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
> cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
> tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
> benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
> light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. ...
So many myths about messengers out there,
this is probably the most prevalent, the idea that
messengers break laws because they're trying
to pad or maximize their paycheck. Fact is, a
courier is just as likely to scrounge an extra ten or twenty
by going extra slow than by going extra fast. Where
the runs come up, and when, it's pretty much random.
It's not like there is this bottomless pool of deliveries
and the messengers get as many as they can
drop. It used to be like that, sometimes, at the
busiest outfits. Not anymore. Now you are just
as likely to get rewarded with extra cash by
reading the paper for another five minutes.
(Friedman sure is an innocent little fellar, aint he?)
But messengers are still required, several times
per day as part of the job, for a variety of reasons,
to haul ass through traffic and break laws. They do
it because they signed up for it and that's what
they are being asked/required to do, not because
they think they're going to make any extra cash
doing it. (It is also part of the job requirement that
they not damage people or property as they
break traffic laws like they're goin out of style, which
in fact they are.) Yes, it is fun.
It should also be noted that if you see someone
who looks like they might be a messenger, the
chance that they are an actual messenger is
quite small, and most folks wouldn't be able to
recognize a real messenger even if she rode up and
delivered to them a bite on the ass.
> to be able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
> nighmares car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
> they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
> learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
> way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
> minor scrapes.
No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year. 'Minor scrapes' were
much more frequent. About 1/3 of respondents (LAB members,
avg. 48 y.o. male professional with college degree) reported
suffering some kind of crash in the previous year; about 10%
suffered a 'serious' crash in the previous year.
www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm
> > If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
> > you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
> > point in a bike-related injury.
>
> That's fearmongering.
Aah. Sorry, it's plain truth. Why do you
fight it so hard? It must really get you down.
It is well accepted by all reasonable persons who
look at this issue that cycling is far more
injurious, on a per-hour or per-mile basis, than
either driving or walking. It is obvious to any
sane and reasonable person why this is so.
Shall we dredge up the Ken Kifer survey that
found 'an injury is 33 times more likely to
occur from riding a bike as opposed
to driving a car for the same distance'? Whoops,
looks like I just did...
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
So, what numbers do you have that would dispute
this?
If you think stating the truth is 'fearmongering,'
it can only mean that you find the truth to be
frightening. And that's okay, Frank, if you're
scared of the truth as you seem to be. But you
need to accept reality and deal with it so you
can make that first big step: pulling that bike
down from its hook in the garage. You want
fearmongering? I'll give you fearmongering--
you're going to have a heart attack if you
don't exercise regularly. Now go ride.
> Despite your fearmongering...
Okay.
> More fearmongering.
Uh huh.
> Fearmongering.
All right.
> Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
> than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
> fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
> lightning...
Avoiding car-bike collisions no more of a concern
to regular CYCLISTS than house fires, stairs, etc.??
Do you even read what you write?
> > Do you honestly believe that?
>
> Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
> in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
> When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
> deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
> occupant deaths?
Oh, I see. You mean 'often' in terms of absolute numbers, not
in terms of per encounter rates, like every other reasonable
person would mean it. Gotcha. Well, if you can absorb
the basics of statistical analysis we can begin to have
an actual discussion.
..
> > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.
>
> If you can absorb the fact that #4 is what's taught in vehicular
> cycling books and classes, we'll both save a lot of time on this
> discussion.
You think you're teaching #4, but you're fooling
yourself. I'm trying to help you see how
you could _actually_ teach #4, but you
don't seem willing to listen.
Anyway, we all love #4 right? The question is do you
think 2 is safer than 3, which it seems you must to
remain consistent.
Robert
|