Regional and School Buses!

Peter Clinch

Wilson wrote:

> Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents will
> primarily benefit the cyclist. To me the basic means of avoidance for
> the cyclist is to assume the driver can't see him, unless eye contact is
> made, and ride accordingly.

That...

> Avoiding crashes with motor vehicles is of
> the utmost importance for cyclist safety.

And that, are not actually quite the obvious pairing you suppose,
because it's very a very different case between following traffic and
oncoming traffic you may be in conflict of right of way with at a junction.

If I assume nobody can see me until I can see they can see me, that
means I have to be out of the way of following traffic, down in the
gutter. But experience suggests that being well out of the gutter, very
much *in* the way, is better for me.

Motorists aren't blind: they can see potholes and road paint, cyclists
are not a stretch. IMHO the problem comes when they are seen and then
dismissed as irrelevant. With following traffic, you're irrelevant if
you're out of the way, or at least as far out of the way as a driver
thinks he can squeeze by without scratching his paintwork.

So I think sitting in a place that demands careful attention from a
driver is actually better than assuming you can't be seen, and that is
what will help you avoid a lot of crashes. I can't get eye contact with
everyone who might be behind me, it's just not realistic.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jon

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote in message
news:gpadnalwaMTLiNvVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
>> addresssing the issue of prevention and education all along. And
>> part of education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.
>
> Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at
> this from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road
> is
> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.

Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
the biggest vehicles are the safest.

> I doubt there are statistics to dispute this supposition.
> [collision inherently unsafe for the cyclist]

No, but the statistics I've cited do implicitly account for
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. The instances of fatal
collisions must be infrequent enough that even the cyclists'
relative vulnerability compared to the cars' occupants
doesn't make the cyclist at large risk overall.

What seems *so incredible* to many people is that cycling
is actually *less risky* than many actitivies they don't think
of as very risky at all...

> Whatever can be done to avoid bicycle/motor vehicle accidents
> will primarily benefit the cyclist.

Yes, but it's the 'whatever', that may be at issue. Some
beneficial behaviors may seem counter to common sense
and some common sense behaviors may be counter
productive to risk reduction. As Peter points out, assuming
you're not seen, or worse, 'invisible', may lead to behavior
that actually increases risk. And assuming that every driver
out there wants to run you off "their road" isn't productive either.

Many have suggested that driver education, cyclist education,
public awareness, etc., are beneficial to reducing bicycle and
motor vehicle collisions. Improved infrastructure, safe
passing distance and other laws may be, too. Better
enforcement of existing regulations, yes even for cyclists,
may help. I've seen many, many cyclists behaving in
ways that increase risk for all road users, for instance, riding
against traffic, at night, without lights or reflectors... That's
really risky behavior.

However, me on my bike in the the left turn lane waiting
my turn in traffic isn't risky behavior, despite what some
may think. It's the appropriate, legal, and smart thing to
do. Yes, I will be "in people's way", the same as I am in
my car in the same position. I will be as "out of their way"
as is possible and prudent as soon as I can be. Often as
fast out of the intersection as the car in front of me.

Jon

Wilson

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:4847beb0$0$6040$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote in message
> news:gpadnalwaMTLiNvVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
>>> addresssing the issue of prevention and education all along. And
>>> part of education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.
>>
>> Perhaps this is why we aren't understanding each other. I'm looking at
>> this from the standpoint that a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the
>> road
>> is
>> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.
>
> Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
> the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
> actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
> the biggest vehicles are the safest.
[....]

Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not
necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to bet it
will.

I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides with a semi
truck and trailer. I don't care if it does *not necessarily* follow that
the occupants of the semi truck will be safer than the occupants of the Mini
Cooper. My common sense tells me the odds of survival overwhelingly favor
the semi truck occupants over the Mini Cooper occupants.

The link below is to a graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton of cycle
racers in Mexico near the Texas border. There's also a video availble if
the still shot isn't graphic enough. According to your statistics all
these cyclists were statistically less safe driving to the start of the race
with their bikes in tow than they were on the road racing their bikes. Then
the unthinkable happened. Your statistics are no respector of persons.
Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your body flying though
the air.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...tory?id=4984659

Watch Out and Stay safe. All of y'all.

Jon

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote in message
news:NbOdnRbMKM1rvdXVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote
>> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
>>> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.
>>
>> Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
>> the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
>> actuallity, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
>> the biggest vehicles are the safest.
> [....]
>
> Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
> anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may
> *not necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
> bet it will.
>
> I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides
> with a semi truck and trailer.

Me neither, but again, that's not the point I am addressing. The
problem with accessing risk in this case, as is common, is one
of selective observation and flawed generalization.

Imagine you are in a minor car collision, wearing your seat belt.
You are not injured, but a gasoline leak has started a fire. You
have time to escape if you move quickly, but your seat belt is
jammed. You die in the fire. OK, so you carry a knife to cut
the seat belt. What if that slight delay makes the difference?

Clearly in this case, wearing the seat belt was as undesirable
as being in the Mini Cooper crushed by the semi. But it does
not necessarily follow that *not* wearing seat belts is the safest
behavior.

> Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not necessary*
> follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
> bet it will.

Depends on whether the bottle obtains escape velocity. %^)
That you are willing to wager on the likely outcome suggests an
understanding of the laws of physics or at least a sound
generalization from observation of a fairly simple circumstance
with few variables.

But when assessing relative risk of various human activities, the
laws of physics are only part of the picture. Hmmm, this
reminds me of the falling Coke bottle in the movie, _The Gods
Must be Crazy_.

> graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton [...]
> According to your statistics all these cyclists were statistically less
> safe driving to the start of the race with their bikes in tow than they
> were on the road racing their bikes.

The cyclists were exposed to greater risk while driving.

Shall I send you links to news photos of the mangled
remains of the SUV where four children of friends of
mine died?

> Then the unthinkable happened.

Not unthinkable. An unlikely thing happened.
A tragic incident.

Do you propose that the cyclists involved failed to
properly prepare for and take evasive action?

Do you propose that they failed to make eye contact
with the driver, -- drunk, asleep at the wheel,-- before
proceeding?

The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
not a accident, it was man slaughter.

> Your statistics are no respector of persons.

Correct. One-in-a-million events happen.
Strangely, in about one in a million times over
the long run. %^)

> Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your
> body flying though the air.

Correct.

No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
camp. Both have happened here.

Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
dangerous.

Jon

DennisTheBald

> DennisTheBald
> For years now the levels of carbon monoxide emitted by new automobiles in
> the US (sorry, don't know about other countries) has been so low that if you
> fire up your (1980 or newer) Buick in a three car or a one car garage, it
> will never kill you. See:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1273253
> This result may or may not be able to be extrapolated to the big ball we
> live on.
> Kerry

I notice that you don't go so far as to say that car exhaust is
actually good for a body, good for you (doing so would have blown your
cover, you auto-industrial complex shill you;-). I'm still somewhat
incredulous, despite your citation. But, I am willing to acquiesce
that there has been some movement in a positive direction regarding
auto emissions in the US during the past couple decades... I wouldn't
want to get all political but there are certainly those that feel
these gains come at too high of a price and we need to operate more
like the Chinese do with fewer governmental regulations and more
conscripted labor. I am looking forward to all y'all burning less
sulfur in the diesel motor fuel when you deliver my goods.

And, even though governmental regulation is driving improvements in
the level of this one poisonous gas emitted by the motor vehicles I
don't think that you can conclude that a few failed suicide attempts
here and there make it safe to run your car in the garage. As a
matter of fact the reference you cite indicates that the subject of
this story was pulled unconscious from the garage after three hours,
most vehicles will operate for considerably longer than that on a full
tank. Also your cited report was created in 1981 testing 1980 model
chevys - I suspect that the same 1980 models would produce much more
CO if tested today. The late 70's were a period of peak
environmentalist activity, but with the 80s came Reaganomics and that
whole "greed is good" thing. Today the CDC recommends that you <not/>
operate a motor vehicle in your garage: http://www.cdc.gov/co/faqs.htm
- I believe this page to have been updated since 1981.

And I would encourage any and all motorists to test your theory by
going into the garage and fire it up.

Wilson

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:484937d1$0$6061$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote in message
> news:NbOdnRbMKM1rvdXVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote
>>> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>>
>>> a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
>>>> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.
>>>
>>> Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
>>> the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
>>> actuality, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
>>> the biggest vehicles are the safest.
>> [....]
>>
>> Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
>> anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may
>> *not necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>>
>> I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides
>> with a semi truck and trailer.
>
> Me neither, but again, that's not the point I am addressing. The
> problem with accessing risk in this case, as is common, is one
> of selective observation and flawed generalization.
>
> Imagine you are in a minor car collision, wearing your seat belt.
> You are not injured, but a gasoline leak has started a fire. You
> have time to escape if you move quickly, but your seat belt is
> jammed. You die in the fire. OK, so you carry a knife to cut
> the seat belt. What if that slight delay makes the difference?
>
> Clearly in this case, wearing the seat belt was as undesirable
> as being in the Mini Cooper crushed by the semi. But it does
> not necessarily follow that *not* wearing seat belts is the safest
> behavior.
>
>> Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not necessary*
>> follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>
> Depends on whether the bottle obtains escape velocity. %^)
> That you are willing to wager on the likely outcome suggests an
> understanding of the laws of physics or at least a sound
> generalization from observation of a fairly simple circumstance
> with few variables.
>
> But when assessing relative risk of various human activities, the
> laws of physics are only part of the picture. Hmmm, this
> reminds me of the falling Coke bottle in the movie, _The Gods
> Must be Crazy_.
>
>> graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton [...]
>> According to your statistics all these cyclists were statistically less
>> safe driving to the start of the race with their bikes in tow than they
>> were on the road racing their bikes.
>
> The cyclists were exposed to greater risk while driving.
>
> Shall I send you links to news photos of the mangled
> remains of the SUV where four children of friends of
> mine died?
>
>> Then the unthinkable happened.
>
> Not unthinkable. An unlikely thing happened.
> A tragic incident.
>
> Do you propose that the cyclists involved failed to
> properly prepare for and take evasive action?
>
> Do you propose that they failed to make eye contact
> with the driver, -- drunk, asleep at the wheel,-- before
> proceeding?
>
> The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
> Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
> not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
> motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
> not a accident, it was man slaughter.
>
>> Your statistics are no respecter of persons.
>
> Correct. One-in-a-million events happen.
> Strangely, in about one in a million times over
> the long run. %^)
>
>> Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your
>> body flying though the air.
>
> Correct.
>
> No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
> swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
> pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
> and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
> camp. Both have happened here.
>
> Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
> dangerous.
>
> Jon
>

My argument doesn't concern the relative dangers of cycling compared to
other activities, such as roller derby, per hour risk of exposure, or
whatever. They are what they are.

My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist. It is
far and away more dangerous for the cyclist than for the train engineer,
car, or
the bus or simi truck drivers. My point is that it is critically important
for the cyclist to act accordingly and use their own judgment and wits to
avoid this eventuality.

Thass all I'm sayin'.

vernon

"Kerry Montgomery" <kamontgo@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:nMGdnUzhJ5RbP9TVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> "DennisTheBald" <DennisTheBald@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8681d376-16c6-41c3-be0f-f57d7583de11@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> DennisTheBald
> For years now the levels of carbon monoxide emitted by new automobiles in
> the US (sorry, don't know about other countries) has been so low that if
> you fire up your (1980 or newer) Buick in a three car or a one car garage,
> it will never kill you. See:
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...i?artid=1273253
> This result may or may not be able to be extrapolated to the big ball we
> live on.
> Kerry
>
You have too much faith in the assertions of the report.

Yes, fewer people die of carbon monoxide poisoning when attempting to kill
themselves by using car exhausts but it's still possible to to be killed by
asphyxiation if the confined space is not ventilated. Catalytic converters
removed the carbon monoxide but the carbon dioxide levels are unaffected.

In a confined unventilated space with an engine running, the oxygen levels
will drop, the carbon dioxide levels rise and any hapless mammals including
humans sharing that space will eventually suffocate due to the lack of
oxygen. It just takes longer to die but gives more opportunities for the
suicide wannabees to change their minds and do something about it. It also
increases the chances of being discovered by a third party before the
attempt succeeds.

You are all welcome to try to prove me wrong but I would recommend you try
to do it using a hands on approach....

Jon

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>
> My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
> getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
> event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist.

So based on this do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?

Jon

Wilson

"Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote in message
news:484d075c$0$5908$88260bb3@news.teranews.com...
> "Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote
>>
>> My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
>> getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
>> event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist.
>
> So based on this do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?
>
> Jon
>
>

Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.
If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
middle ground for other outcomes.

You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

Peter Clinch

Wilson wrote:

> Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly
> dangerous. If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous.
> There's little middle ground for other outcomes.

You can say the same about transatlantic air travel: if the airliner
crashes into the sea then your chances are not good (!), but that's not
enough reason to state that transatlantic air travel is dangerous.

> You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

And whether to take the chances is based on the overall odds, not the
worst case outcome.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Wilson

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6b4qgkF39fnjmU1@mid.individual.net...
> Wilson wrote:
>
>> Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly
>> dangerous. If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous.
>> There's little middle ground for other outcomes.
>
> You can say the same about transatlantic air travel: if the airliner
> crashes into the sea then your chances are not good (!), but that's not
> enough reason to state that transatlantic air travel is dangerous.
>
>> You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.
>
> And whether to take the chances is based on the overall odds, not the
> worst case outcome.
>

I think you've got it Pete. Any outcome other than a safe landing is a
worst case outcome. There's no room for alternate outcomes. If airplanes
always landed safely you could say flying was essentially a perfectly safe
activity. But they don't. You might feel safe in a commercial airliner,
but decline to fly with an Alaska bush pilot who flies into wilderness areas
where there are no airports. You consider the safety ramifications and you
take your chances.

I'm not telling you not to cycle on the road, I'm only suggesting if you do
and you get run over by a bus there's every likelihood it will be your last
ride. So do whatever you can to avoid that eventuality. To me this is
common sense stuff. You know like maybe not wearing a helmet when you
ride - you consider the safety ramifications and you take your chances.

!Jones

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:41:36 -0500, in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote:

>Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.
>If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
>middle ground for other outcomes.

I once saw a poster that said "You can't get AIDS in public toilets."
I always wanted to append that it mattered what one *did* in the
public toilet! That wasn't what they meant, of course.

I saw a news article about skydiving this weekend; I think he didn't
have a parachute, as I recall. Proper equipment is an absolute
*must*!!!

Jones

Jon

"Wilson" <ww@dixiedancekings.com> wrote in message
news:bLadnb3snNt9rNDVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Jon" <jonmein@none.non> wrote
>>
>> [...] do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?
>>
>
> Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.

So in your view danger is based not on the likelihood of bad
outcome, but rather the occurrence of bad outcome. Thus, if
I go sky diving and land safely, then that particular event wasn't
"particularly dangerous".

> If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
> middle ground for other outcomes.
>
> You consider the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

So based on this, do you consider cycling as more dangerous, less
dangerous, or equally as dangerous as sky diving?

Jon

Peter Clinch

Wilson wrote:

> I think you've got it Pete. Any outcome other than a safe landing is a
> worst case outcome. There's no room for alternate outcomes. If
> airplanes always landed safely you could say flying was essentially a
> perfectly safe activity. But they don't.

But they do say it's a reasonably safe activity, and that's proven by
lots of people surviving their flights.

> I'm not telling you not to cycle on the road, I'm only suggesting if you
> do and you get run over by a bus there's every likelihood it will be
> your last ride. So do whatever you can to avoid that eventuality.

No. If you do everything you can to avoid accidents that may have fatal
outcomes then you won't get up to much. No shortage of people are
killed falling down stairs, so do I choose to live in a bungalow? No.
Do I always take an elevator when one is available? No, I prefer to
exercise and use the stairs. How about you? Do you always avoid going
down stairs, or make a special point of sitting down and moving down a
step at a time to avoid the possibility of a fatal fall? I very much
doubt it!
If you don't take the probability of the accident into account then
you're doomed to never doing anything or living with innumerable cases
of double standards in your approach to risk taking.

> me this is common sense stuff. You know like maybe not wearing a helmet
> when you ride - you consider the safety ramifications and you take your
> chances.

Which just goes to show there's more to it than "common sense", which is
often not common and sometimes not too sensible. I gave up wearing the
helmet I used to use for "common sense" reasons every time I rode (at
least for transportational cycling) because having read lots of
literature on the subject I now know there's no real effect on serious
head injuries in populations that take them up. That might not be
"common sense", but it's true. I can think up scenarios where they'll
help, but I can also think up scenarious where they hinder. The simple
fact of the matter is that playing the odds for survival they make no
appreciable difference.

And it remains the case that cycling just isn't that dangerous. My
chances of a serious head injury cycling are a little less per unit
distance travelled on a bike in the UK compared to being a pedestrian,
and that's with the benefit of my special segregated sidewalk when I'm
on foot.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/