Hasty generalizations of the day - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

10-03-2003, 07:07 AM

Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially
if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is
substandard to theirs);

The majority of people talking on cell phones are females;

Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;

The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude
of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and

The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st
century.

Kerry "the hasty generalizer" Nikolaisen

10-03-2003, 10:25 AM

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:07:53 +0000, Kerry Nikolaisen wrote:

> Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists,
> especially if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike
> is substandard to theirs);

Clearly true. I first noticed this when I started riding a mountain bike
from time to time. Roadies I encoutered stopped waving.

> Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;

That is a common belief, and since it flies in the face of what people
would expect, it is accepted as true. But I really don't think so. They
may be more careless, as a group, than others, but young men are more
likely to be overtly hostile, which is more dangerous to riders. Even
with carelessness, I think the very old are more careless, even when they
are trying to pay attention, than your average teenage girl talking on the
phone.

> The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a
> multitude of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory
> sidepath laws; and
>
> The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st
> century.

These last two show you have a clear grasp of the obvious.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion
_`\(,_ | unequalled by any people in the Nineteenth Century. We are not
(_)/ (_) | to be curbed now. --Henry Cabot Lodge, 1895

10-03-2003, 10:35 AM

David L. Johnson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;
>
>That is a common belief, and since it flies in the face of what people
>would expect, it is accepted as true. But I really don't think so. They
>may be more careless, as a group, than others, but young men are more
>likely to be overtly hostile, which is more dangerous to riders.

An NYC group, Right of Way found that in NYC pedestrian and
cyclist fatalities that men were more often involeved than women

For the 820 fatalities in which the identity of the driver was
established, 747, or 91 percent, of the drivers were men; 73 (9
percent) were women. In contrast, women account for an estimated
25 percent of vehicle-miles driven on New York City streets,
excluding 14 KILLED BY AUTOMOBILE highways, indicating that
women are under-represented as killerdrivers by a factor of 2 to
3, while men are correspondingly overrepresented.

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

--
Steven O'Neill [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

10-03-2003, 11:05 AM

In article <Zoffb.3069$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.com> ,
"Kerry Nikolaisen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially
> if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is
> substandard to theirs);

They're not rude, they're anaerobic.

> The majority of people talking on cell phones are females;

Dunno about that. See lots of bad behaviour from both sexes

> Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;

> The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude
> of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and

Could be, but I hope not.

Have I ever told y'all about the "bike routes" on my way to work?

I ride a 12 km commute that mainly runs along an extremely busy 2-lane
road, a major suburban route for car traffic at various points. (For
those of you who know Vancouver: St. John's Street in Port Moody, up
Clarke Road, along North Road, along Columbia to New West; despite the
four name changes, that's one continuous street.)

In Port Moody, the street that I live on is a designated "bike route",
despite stop signs every two blocks aaand...a one-block hump in the road
that consists of something around 100' of elevation gain and fall in
that length (yeah, it's really steep). Note that one block away on St.
John's, there is very little elevation change at this point.

Fun section number two is the beautiful-but-useless bike path underneath
the new Skytrain (elevated light rail) line. Skytrain is great. The
path, on the other hand, terminates suddenly in a place where you have
to ride across a private parking lot, then enter an insanely narrow
designated truck route. In other words, it's not usable for commuters.
Nice ride along the water on the bike path, though.

I don't take any of these "bike routes". Instead, I risk the lesser
hazards of crawling up Clark Road hill and riding with traffic on
Columbia. The Columbia street section has become much easier now that
I'm faster; doing 40-50 km/h along that section means I basically don't
hold up traffic. I think some of the drivers are a little shocked when
they see a cyclist going that quick.

> The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st
> century.
>
> Kerry "the hasty generalizer" Nikolaisen
>
>
>

--
Ryan Cousineau, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

10-03-2003, 11:10 AM

In article <Zoffb.3069$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.com> ,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists, especially
> if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is
> substandard to theirs);
>
> The majority of people talking on cell phones are females;
>
> Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;
>
> The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a multitude
> of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws; and
>
> The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st
> century.
>
> Kerry "the hasty generalizer" Nikolaisen
>
>
>
>

Now how are you going to fit all that on a bumper sticker?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

10-03-2003, 11:15 AM

"Kerry Nikolaisen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:Zoffb.3069

You should have written "hasty and only partially true generalizations of
the day."

> Elite or club cyclists are less likely to wave to other cyclists,
especially
> if those waving are Freds (i.e., any cyclist whose attire/bike is
> substandard to theirs);

Not here in Texas. Almost everybody waves. In small towns, everyone waves,
even if they are both driving trucks.

> The majority of people talking on cell phones are females;

Not from what I have seen. I see both male and female cell phone talkers all
of the time.

> Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;

This one just isn't true. If they were, then their insurance rates would be
the highest. Holding everything else equal (rate zone, number of tickets,
number of accidents, type of vehicle, primary driver), unmarried males under
the age of 21 are the highest risk group and pay the highest premiums.

> The explosion of "greenways" and associated multi-use paths, in a
multitude
> of metropolitan areas, will again bring rise to mandatory sidepath laws;
and

Unfortunately, I believe this to be true....

>
> The Segway will be considered one of the biggests "flops" of the 21st
> century.

We can only hope! Hah!

-Buck

10-03-2003, 11:22 AM

In article <01jfb.49422$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "Buck" <s c h
w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> says...

....

> > Young female drivers are the most reckless drivers on the road;
>
> This one just isn't true. If they were, then their insurance rates would be
> the highest. Holding everything else equal (rate zone, number of tickets,
> number of accidents, type of vehicle, primary driver), unmarried males under
> the age of 21 are the highest risk group and pay the highest premiums.

Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them
the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their
aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently
aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

10-03-2003, 11:50 AM

"David Kerber" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net...

> Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them
> the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their
> aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently
> aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness.

You can play around with semantics all you want, but the facts are that
unmarried males under the age of 21 have the greatest number of accidents.

Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in
the U.S. for the year 2000:

For Males:
Rank <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All
Ages

1
Unintentional
Suffocation
302 Unintentional
Drowning
316 Unintentional
MV Traffic
399 Unintentional
MV Traffic
558 Unintentional
MV Traffic
7,320 Unintentional
MV Traffic
4,983 Unintentional
MV Traffic
4,797 Unintentional
MV Traffic
3,652 Unintentional
MV Traffic
2,186 Unintentional
Fall
4,722 Unintentional
MV Traffic
28,352

Rank <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All
Ages

1
Unintentional
Suffocation
224 Unintentional
MV Traffic
249 Unintentional
MV Traffic
332 Unintentional
MV Traffic
358 Unintentional
MV Traffic
3,003 Unintentional
MV Traffic
1,733 Unintentional
MV Traffic
1,960 Unintentional
MV Traffic
1,558 Unintentional
MV Traffic
1,186 Unintentional
Fall
5,551 Unintentional
MV Traffic
13,642

Note that for almost every age group where motor vehicle accidents are the
number one cause of injury, males have over twice as many accidents as
females. Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Also note that one definition of reckless is "Indifferent to or disregardful
of consequences." Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

If that doesn't describe young male driving habits (including the ones I had
as a youngster), then I can't think of what does. Perhaps the girls fall
under the "indifferent" part, but males are truely "disregardful."

-Buck

10-03-2003, 11:59 AM

"Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> wrote in
message news:wxjfb.49743

Sorry about the formatting problem.... Let me try to fix it.

> Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in
> the U.S. for the year 2000:
>
> For Males:
Ages Number One Cause of Injury Number per 1,000
<1 Unintentional Suffocation 302
1-4 Unintentional Drowning 316
5-9 Unintentional MV Traffic 399
10-14 Unintentional MV Traffic 558
15-24 Unintentional MV Traffic 7,320
25-34 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,983
35-44 Unintentional MV Traffic 4,797
45-54 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,652
55-64 Unintentional MV Traffic 2,186
65+ Unintentional Fall 4,722
All Unintentional MV Traffic 28,352

For Females:
Ages Number One Cause of Injury Number per 1,000
<1 Unintentional Suffocation 224
1-4 Unintentional MV Traffic 249
5-9 Unintentional MV Traffic 332
10-14 Unintentional MV Traffic 358
15-24 Unintentional MV Traffic 3,003
25-34 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,733
35-44 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,960
45-54 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,558
55-64 Unintentional MV Traffic 1,186
65+ Unintentional Fall 5,551
All Unintentional MV Traffic 13,642

10-03-2003, 12:26 PM

In article <wxjfb.49743$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>, "Buck" <s c h
w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> says...
> "David Kerber" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net...
>
> > Being the highest risk from an insurance standpoint doesn't make them
> > the most reckless. IMO, the major problem with teen boys is their
> > aggressiveness, while the girls are more careless. Apparently
> > aggressiveness causes more crashes than carelessness.
>
> You can play around with semantics all you want, but the facts are that
> unmarried males under the age of 21 have the greatest number of accidents.

You're correct that I am splitting hairs here, though your stats have
significantly deflated my confidence in my core thesis. I didn't
realize there was that much of a difference in the *number* of
injury-producing accidents between teenage boys and girls. I knew the
number of deaths and cost of accidents was significantly higher for
boys, but assumed (and you know what that does ;-P) that it was caused
more by the severity of the accidents than the number.

That said, I still think there's a difference in style between girls'
poor driving and boys' poor driving. I think girls tend to simply not
pay as much attention to their driving, getting into accidents because
they were distracted by socializing with others in the car, looking
around, etc. My wife simply doesn't look far enough down the road to
be able to anticipate actions which might be required to avoid
problems. IMO (based on being a teenage boy at one time), boys'
driving problems tend to be caused more by an aggressive driving
style, speeding, swerving around other cars and the like.

These are gross generalizations of course, with lots of overlap
between the groups, so there will be plenty of counter-examples on
both sides.

>
> Here's the breakdown by age group and gender for unintentional injuries in
> the U.S. for the year 2000:
>
> For Males:
> Rank <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All
> Ages
>
> 1
> Unintentional
> Suffocation
> 302 Unintentional
> Drowning
> 316 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 399 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 558 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 7,320 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 4,983 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 4,797 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 3,652 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 2,186 Unintentional
> Fall
> 4,722 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 28,352
>
>
> Rank <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All
> Ages
>
> 1
> Unintentional
> Suffocation
> 224 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 249 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 332 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 358 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 3,003 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 1,733 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 1,960 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 1,558 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 1,186 Unintentional
> Fall
> 5,551 Unintentional
> MV Traffic
> 13,642
>
>
> Note that for almost every age group where motor vehicle accidents are the
> number one cause of injury, males have over twice as many accidents as
> females. Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> Also note that one definition of reckless is "Indifferent to or disregardful
> of consequences." Source: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> If that doesn't describe young male driving habits (including the ones I had
> as a youngster), then I can't think of what does. Perhaps the girls fall
> under the "indifferent" part, but males are truely "disregardful."

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.