| Guest | Re: logic speeding away
On Feb 1, 11:37 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
> > party, and yes, inattention is a mistake. 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.
Since I've explained at least 15 times that the "awareness" you count
as "most important" is NOT left out, I suppose I should ignore that
idee fixe of yours. Obviously, you're not going to understand.
> > 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.
I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
rules of the road are not important ("worthless ****," I think you
said) and fear and hyper-awareness are needed to overcome the terrible
danger of bicycling on the road. I think the bike messenger thing
might be behind it.
> But, first of all, I actually became a messenger relatively
> late in my life as a bicyclist.
Not unusual.
> And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
> their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
> anyway.
Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
> 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.
Well, by God, since you're so opposed to "vehicular cycling," you'd
better get them to stop!! ;-)
> > Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
> > on their bikes in city traffic.
>
> Call it 30.
OK, I'll accept your quibble.
> 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.
:-) As I pointed out, a messenger's priority set and perspective is
far different from a normal cyclist.
Yes, if I wanted advice on how to run red lights and survive, I'd
consult with a bike messenger. In fact, I promise to write to you
first!
But if I want to move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws, I think I'll pay more attention to
the 50 to 100 experts who have made the most significant contributions
to the understanding and teaching of Vehicular Cycling. And as far as
I know, there's not much overlap between those groups.
> 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.
Really? Odd, the results of the survey at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
ergonomics/bike/
seem to dispute your claims. So - got data?
> > 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...
> 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...
Whatever, Robert. That's just another quibble on your part.
> > [Ordinary bike commuters are]
> > 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.
<sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, he
defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
"serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.
He also defined "seeking medical treatment" as "serious." But the
median cost of medical treatment was just over $150. It's pretty
obvious that we're talking about a median injury equal to road rash
cleaned out at the ER. Even a broken finger incurs much more expense
than a mere $150.
Of course, we've been over this many, many times. And of course,
you'll continue to distort the facts so you can hang on to your
"bicycling is dangerous" viewpoint.
> > > 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?
Because words like "not unlikely" and "some subtantial" are
intentionally foggy, and chosen to instill fear. It's also true - and
more accurate - to say "Even if you ride for a long time, it's
unlikely that you'll be injured in any serious way." Why choose
phrasing designed to scare people away from cycling?
> 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.
Only if you define "injurious" to include every scraped knee, and to
exclude cycling's health benefits.
Yes, if you were to bike everywhere instead of drive everywhere,
you'll almost certainly fall off your bike someday, and get the most
common bike injury - literally, a skinned knee. OTOH, if you drive
everywhere, you're far more likely to die early due to the effects of
being sedentary.
Like most of American society, you're accepting large and common risks
(e.g. death by heart disease) due to a fear of uncommon, minor risks
(falling off a bike).
> 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
To quote:
"Q. 19: When asked about the nature of their most serious cycling-
related injury during the last 12 months,
161 said there was no accident or no injury that was a problem the
next day.
53 said they experienced road rash or other significant abrasions.
4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse
than a headache.
9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, or broken bone.
2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness
or other short-term brain injury.
2 said they had a compound or skull fracture, and/or multiple broken
bones and non-permanent injuries.
None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind.
Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
those kinds of injuries. "
And it's worth noting that the survey was not a random sample. In
other words, it's likely that a person who _had_ been injured in a
bike accident would be far more likely to seek out and respond to a
survey on bike accidents, compared to a person who had never had a
bike injury. (This, BTW, is one of the reasons I bowed out of helping
Ken with that survey.)
> > 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?
Let's see: Do regular cyclists ever walk down stairs? Why yes, they
do! Can they seriously injure themselves doing so? Of course! In
fact, serious injuries from stairs are among the more common reasons
for visiting emergency rooms. Should a person therefore worry while
using stairs? No. Only the most timid people do.
Drowning while swimming is far more common than dying from car-bike
collisions. They're also more common per hour exposure. Should a
person therefore worry all the while he swims?
Deaths from being hit by a car while crossing a street are far more
common than deaths from car-bike collisions. They're also more common
per hour exposure. How much should a person worry before stepping off
the curb?
There are all sorts of dangers in life. Cycling is NOT one of the big
ones, especially for cyclists who ride properly.
You choose to scare people with tales of great harm due to cycling. I
choose to show people that cycling is not unusually harmful, and in
fact has benefits that greatly outweigh its minor risks.
Sorry that offends you so.
- Frank Krygowski
|