| | Re: logic speeding away
On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?
>
> You mean, have I stopped beating my wife? ;-) Nice try.
You don't seem to have a problem answering this
question below when you write "But I do think riding
according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware."
You think 2 is safer than 3. Which is horribly incorrect.
> As Wayne Pein said, "you assume that your 4 categories above are
> absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule following
> are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
> categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
> according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
> randomly?"
>
> Wayne's was a good question...
(1) Without awareness and not according to the rules of the
road: rider blows a red light or stop sign without even
realizing it; rider glances down at drivetrain and drifts
into oncoming traffic; riding illegally on sidewalk, hits
pedestrian coming around corner; rider decides to blow
red light, but fails to notice car coming through
intersection; et cetera...
(2) Without awareness and according to the rules of
the road: rider passing legally through green light fails
to account for possibility of left-turner not seeing him;
Riding lawfully but glances away, fails to notice massive
pothole; Riding through intersection under green light,
fails to notice light-runner coming from way down the
block; Rider glances back during moment that requires eyes
forward, slams into wayward pedestrian who steps into
the street; rider passing line of cars legally on the right
fails to notice gap in line of cars, gets tagged by
vehicle hitting the gap; et cetera...
Awareness: either you are riding with the requisite
level of awareness for the situation at hand, or you're
not. Riders may be able to get by on luck for a time,
but not for very long.
> But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
> violating them, even if the violater is more aware.
Over several decades, bike messengers have proven this
assertion of yours wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> Consider, some of
> the most common causes of car-bike crashes are "rideouts" directly
> into the path of a car
Where's the awareness in that? Obviously if you
ride out into the path of a car that could be avoided,
you are not displaying the minimum level of awareness
regardless of whether you follow traffic laws or not.
And obviously if you ride out in front of a speeding
vehicle, it ultimately matters little if you are following
traffic law when you do it -- you're still going to
die.
> Keep in mind, the definition of "serious crash" in the Moritz paper
> did not match the definition of "accident" in Dennerlein's paper...
> Don't treat the
> standards as equivalent.
Okay, but clearly the rate for the entire messenger population
of Boston and that found for a 48-year-old LAB member with
14.5 years cycling experience are in the same ballpark. Which
can only mean that the veteran messengers of Boston are far
safer cyclists than the average LAB member.
Keep in mind that a messenger's mile and a mile for the
average LAB member are wholly different. Moritz'
survey tallied mainly recreational mileage. Messengers
are almost exclusively downtown. And the recreational
riders of Moritz' survey do most of their riding in fancy,
cycling friendly weather. No such luck for the Boston
messengers. It would be interesting to see how many
of those lost work injuries are due to falls on ice, for
instance.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Robert
> > If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> > to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
> > a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
> > you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.
>
> I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?
>
> I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
> gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
> Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
> that for crossing under the red light?
>
> You seem to be saying it makes no difference; that you're no more
> likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
> green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
> ludicrous.
>
> > If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
> > who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.
>
> > If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
> > risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
> > day long every day. That would also be a messenger.
>
> Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
> _also_ obey laws all day every day!
>
> I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
> However, I'll note thathttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
> mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
> sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
> Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.
>
> In summary, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
> contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
> with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.
>
> Hmm. I think I just summarized the entire discussion!
>
> > > <sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...
>
> > It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
> > of LAB members.
>
> You're right. My mistake.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
> > This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
> > where respondents were left to draw their own line.
> > Where would you draw it?
>
> Regarding personal injury, I'd say common levels of road rash should
> not qualify - and judging by Moritz's data, that must have been most
> of the injuries he uncovered. (That's also corroborated by other
> papers I've seen on cyclist injuries treated in ERs.)
>
> Likewise, I don't think $50 equipment damage should be called
> "serious." That could be caused by slicing an expensive tire on a big
> piece of glass, tearing a cycling jacket by snagging a tree limb, or
> bending almost any shifter or derailleur on the market.
>
> I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
> least one day of work. And I think it should take $150 equipment
> damage exclusive of clothing to call things "serious."
>
>
>
> > >"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. " [Kifer]
>
> > Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
> > Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
> > years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
> > that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
> > least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
> > year;
>
> No! In Moritz's survey, roughly 1/3 talked about "some sort of
> accident" not "some sort of minor cycling injury." That "accident"
> could be a fall off the bike with zero damage, and most of them
> doubtlessly were.
>
> > and about 10% had experienced some more
> > substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
> > just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
> > this is among populations who do most of their
> > riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
> > would be on lonely roads.
>
> > Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
> > cycling is 'extremely safe?'
>
> On average, one crash involving a mere $50 damage, or one cleaning up
> of road rash at an ER in 11 years, or in about 32,000 miles.
>
> Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?
|