drivers speeding away - Page 6

02-01-2007, 07:37 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> > 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...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

02-01-2007, 11:45 AM

On Feb 1, 11:37 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> 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 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
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...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

02-02-2007, 01:11 AM

In article <1170261361.851213.149990@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,

>> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
>> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
>> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
>> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>>
>> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
>> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>
> Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
> one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
> everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
> I flow better within it.

Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
are for -- to make traffic flow better.

I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
it invokes the social component of interacting
with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
social component to be at least as significant
as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
road." Of course it takes more awareness than
adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
their vehicle, itself.

Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
left may go first? That goes against the legal
grain, but sometimes it's sociably beautiful, and
it works, when performed in a way that nobody
involved is too terribly put-out, and everybody
gets to go. Everybody wins. Except the Rules
and the Rule-Followers.

Y'know? Torah/Mitzvah. Letter of the law/spirit
of the law. Give/take (and by taking, give [and
take]).

You can't win, but that's okay because you're
not competing. It's not a contest or a game.
You're just trying to get around, just like
everybody else around you. You're one
of them. You're one of Us. Mobile people.

Continue to keep your eyes on the street and
seeing & anticipating what's happening up ahead.

Keep being safe and watch out for U-turners who
look like just left-turners.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

02-02-2007, 07:25 AM

On Feb 2, 5:11 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1170261361.851213.149...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups .com>,
>
> >> > (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> >> > example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> >> > clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> >> > just go, and stop confusing everybody.")
>
> >> I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
> >> to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
>
> > Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
> > one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
> > everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
> > I flow better within it.
>
> Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
> are for -- to make traffic flow better.
>
> I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
> it invokes the social component of interacting
> with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
> social component to be at least as significant
> as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
> road." Of course it takes more awareness than
> adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
> an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
> their vehicle, itself.

Agreed.

I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
etc.

The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.

But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
driving an Escalade.

> Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
> instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
> Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
> left may go first?

Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.

Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.

But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)

There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
work.

- Frank Krygowski

02-02-2007, 09:22 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> > > 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)...

You are definitely not going to win any awards
for reading comprehension. For a third
time:

> > 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?

> > 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
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
really interesting that you should say that, because
that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
about how many miles a Boston messenger would
ride in a year, seems about the same or
better than the rate found for experienced LAB
members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
incredibly safe.

For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
..5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
study. To you, this rate magically seems 'quite high'
when applied to messengers and amazingly low when
applied to LAB members. To me, it's an
unworkable rate. But you've got to remember that
among those counted were a large number of
abject rookies, many of whom would have very little
experience riding in traffic, much less as messengers,
and dabblers who would not last through the month.
This tells us that the veteran messengers of Boston,
even though they experience thousands of interactions
each day, must havean injury-per-mile rate that is far
lower than that recordedby Moritz for LAB members.
Indeed, among the hundreds of messengers I've
known quite well, the injury rates of the veterans
tend to be at least 2-3 times better than the rate
in the Moritz survey, and better still than the rates
suffered by their hapless rookie compatriots, who I have
compared to the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.

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.

> > 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.

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.

As I said, a messenger in just a few years -- in addition to running
tens of thousands of lights -- will accomplish more
law-abiding and 'predictable' cycling than many of your '50-100
experts' will manage in their entire lives. It is right to
wonder then who the real experts might be.

> > 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 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> ergonomics/bike/
> seem to dispute your claims.

No, they don't.

> > 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, ...

It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
of LAB members. Although many of them were
commuters, most of the mileage reported in the survey
was in fact recreational.

> 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?

>"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; 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?'

Let's get real. These surveys record similar
accident rates to the one that gives the Boston
messenger population its off-the-charts occupational
hazard.

Robert

02-02-2007, 01:58 PM

On Feb 2, 1:22 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> > > > 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)...
>
> You are definitely not going to win any awards
> for reading comprehension.

Why? When said "everything else in between is just politics, pomp and
circumstance, hurt feelings, and other worthless ****" what were you
referring to, if not rules of the road, lights at night, proper lane
postion, evasive maneuvers and the other things I was talking about in
_addition_ to "awareness"?

> For a third
> time:
>
> > > 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.

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. It's impossible to ride a bike without
_some_ level of awareness. So how much "awareness" does one need to
qualify by your standard? How would "awareness" even be measured?

But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware. Consider, some of
the most common causes of car-bike crashes are "rideouts" directly
into the path of a car, and riding the wrong direction on the road.
The most common justification I've heard for the latter is "I can see
the cars coming." IOW, "I'm more aware." They still crash.

Again: The rules of the road work remarkably well. It makes sense to
obey them before - and while - attempting to increase "awareness."

> > > 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
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
> really interesting that you should say that, because
> that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
> according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
> about how many miles a Boston messenger would
> ride in a year, seems about the same or
> better than the rate found for experienced LAB
> members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
> you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
> incredibly safe.
>
> For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
> wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
> which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
> .5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
> study.

Keep in mind, the definition of "serious crash" in the Moritz paper
did not match the definition of "accident" in Dennerlein's paper. By
Moritz's standard, bending a $50 derailleur or visiting an ER to scrub
out road rash was "serious." By Dennerlein's standard, the injury
needed to be serious enough to miss a day of work. IOW, Dennerlein
seems to be talking about more serious injuries. Don't treat the
standards as equivalent.

Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
paper.

> 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 that [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
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"?

- Frank Krygowski

02-05-2007, 09:55 AM

On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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"?

02-05-2007, 12:07 PM

CONTINUED...

On Feb 2, 3:58 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
> see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
> paper.

Full-time messengers ride about 5 times as many
miles annually as the respondents in the Moritz
survey.

It is impressive that the rates for these two
populations are in the same ballpark, considering
the substantial portion of godawful rookies among
the messengers, and their requirement to
work in all types of weather, and on road surfaces
that recreational riders wouldn't (and shouldn't)
dream of riding.

If we forced all the LAB members to spread their
riding evenly throughout the year like the messengers,
instead of concentrating it in dry happy weather,
we can only surmise that their accident rate would
spike dramatically. Riding on ice is probably the most
challenging and dangerous thing an everyday
cyclist can do.

> > If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
> > to occur under a green light than a red one.

> I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?

Well, I have known so many messengers that
I know with certainty that my own experience -- of
burning several hundred thousand red lights
without a single incident but getting hit while
riding lawfully -- is the typical one.

Running a red light puts your mind in a
certain place. There is no pretense that
this or that vehicle will slow or stop or
yield in any way. You KNOW you have to
remain absolutely vigilant. Under a green,
however, it is far easier to make happy
assumptions, drift off.

The trick is to bring the same type of awareness
you would use while running a red light to
running a green light intersection, where any
number of motorist mistakes can do you in if
you're not ready for them.

> 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;

I'm saying it depends.

>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.

What I said was exactly what I said:
Veteran messengers are far more likely to get hit
under green lights than red ones. It's not
'ludicrous,' it's the truth.

> Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
> _also_ obey laws all day every day!

Messengers probably spend the majority of their
time riding in a manner that is technically legal.
They do both all day every day. Your bike is on
a hook in the garage.

> 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.

One thing rookie messengers need to learn is that there
are door zones on both sides of vehicles in stop and go
traffic.

> 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.

I'd go with whoever has vastly more experience.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Robert

02-05-2007, 07:10 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
> least one day of work.

A lost-work injury for a messenger is not the
same as a lost-work injury for a non-messenger.
Anything that keeps a courier off the bike, keeps
them from walking the requisite several miles
per day, OR keeps them from hauling the
requisite weight on their shoulder or back
would result in missed work. What kind
of cycling injury would keep a desk pilot
from going to work and sitting there?

Let's say I own a courier company and two
of my employess -- one a messenger, the other
a dispatcher -- are involved in cycling accidents
over the weekend. Both end up with busted
clavicles. The messenger, as bad as he may
want and need to come to work, is going to be
out for several weeks. If the dispatcher doesn't
come to work on Monday, he's fired.

I think what you mean by your injury standard
is missing at least one day of riding, not work.
Sounds like a decent standard to me.

> Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?

I didn't.You, on the other hand, called it
'quite high' -- after calling the same basic rate 'extremely
safe.' Which is it?

To anyone who may be playing along at home, note
that the accident rates that Frank and I have been
knocking around are among the lowest accident rates that
have ever been recorded -- even though one of them
seemed to be, at first glance, 'quite high.' They are rates
for groups of riders that contain many highly
experienced veterans. Surveys of less
experienced riders have shown much higher accident
and injury rates than these. The overall accident rate for the
entire cycling population is much higher than the
rates in the Moritz survey, Kifer survey, or the
Dennerstein messenger survey.

Is it 'dangerous?' Who knows. Call it 'dangerous' if
doing so helps you stay awake in traffic.

Beware of hobbyist 'experts' whose ideas don't jibe
with those who do it for a living.

Robert