Regional and School Buses!

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am ready to do battle with two bus companies; my public city bus
system and a local school bus company. A frequent example of their
disrespect for cyclists involves a maneuver where the bus speeds up
approaching an intersection and the makes a right across the path of
the cyclist (me in this case)! It drives me nuts! The attitude of
the driver is clear. Get out of my way or be crushed!

Don't assume you are going to change this by jawboning city administrators.
The key here is to remember that getting out of the way is always preferred
to being the crushed victim who was within their rights. Aside from the
fact your family could possibly sue for mega bucks and collect, of course.
On the other hand, if a city bus did the dastardly deed your family will
probably be sol.

Scream at them, give them the finger, throw rocks at them, curse at city
officials, or whatever, but keep on getting out of the way.

"wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am ready to do battle with two bus companies; my public city bus
system and a local school bus company. A frequent example of their
disrespect for cyclists involves a maneuver where the bus speeds up
approaching an intersection and the makes a right across the path of
the cyclist (me in this case)! It drives me nuts! The attitude of
the driver is clear. Get out of my way or be crushed!

An even more obviously malicious incident with a public bus
driver happened to me. Most dangerous part for me was when
the driver pulled in front of me an slammed on his brakes.
I am wary riding through that part of town now. If it happens
again, I will have at least a cellphone picture of the bus
showing the number if not video of the drivers' behavior.
I won't yell and scream. I will file a complaint.

Quoted message said:

Don't assume you are going to change this by jawboning
city administrators.

It seems to me that calmly relaying your experiences to the
bus operating company managers *is* a good first step.
Follow up with a letter including as much details for the who,
what, when and where... Ask for specific corrective action.
Document the reponses you get. Follow up and escalate.

Your city, school district, and state likely have oversight
boards for public transit operators. Contact them. Find
out how to file a complaint. Go to city council and school
board meetings. Sign up to speak.

Even better, videos showing aggressive public bus driving
may be a very effective means for changing behavior. Copies
of these delivered to transportation supervisors and the public
officials who oversee them can have an impact. They really
don't want that sort of bad PR. Getting a local TV public
affairs reporter interested can raise the profile.

If the incident occurs with some regularity at the same location,
getting a several eye-witnesses and a video recording shouldn't
be too difficult. If you can arrange to have the video shot by
an off-duty police officer, or a local TV station, so much the
better. %^)

Quoted message said:

Scream at them, give them the finger, throw rocks at them,
curse at city officials, or whatever,

These responses won't help prevent the situation in the future.
In my opinion, acting in anger won't help you to have a "happier"
ride either. %^)

Quoted message said:

but keep on getting out of the way.

By all means, be safe. Ride friendly, too.

Of course, if you're going to complain about someone elses'
driving, you need to be able to demonstrate that you're riding
as required by local and state ordinances.

Jon

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am ready to do battle with two bus companies; my public city bus
system and a local school bus company. A frequent example of their
disrespect for cyclists involves a maneuver where the bus speeds up
approaching an intersection and the makes a right across the path of
the cyclist (me in this case)! It drives me nuts! The attitude of
the driver is clear. Get out of my way or be crushed!

An even more obviously malicious incident with a public bus
driver happened to me. Most dangerous part for me was when
the driver pulled in front of me an slammed on his brakes.
I am wary riding through that part of town now. If it happens
again, I will have at least a cellphone picture of the bus
showing the number if not video of the drivers' behavior.
I won't yell and scream. I will file a complaint.

Quoted message said:

Don't assume you are going to change this by jawboning
city administrators.

It seems to me that calmly relaying your experiences to the
bus operating company managers *is* a good first step.
Follow up with a letter including as much details for the who,
what, when and where... Ask for specific corrective action.
Document the reponses you get. Follow up and escalate.

Your city, school district, and state likely have oversight
boards for public transit operators. Contact them. Find
out how to file a complaint. Go to city council and school
board meetings. Sign up to speak.

Even better, videos showing aggressive public bus driving
may be a very effective means for changing behavior. Copies
of these delivered to transportation supervisors and the public
officials who oversee them can have an impact. They really
don't want that sort of bad PR. Getting a local TV public
affairs reporter interested can raise the profile.

If the incident occurs with some regularity at the same location,
getting a several eye-witnesses and a video recording shouldn't
be too difficult. If you can arrange to have the video shot by
an off-duty police officer, or a local TV station, so much the
better. %^)

Quoted message said:

Scream at them, give them the finger, throw rocks at them,
curse at city officials, or whatever,

These responses won't help prevent the situation in the future.
In my opinion, acting in anger won't help you to have a "happier"
ride either. %^)

Quoted message said:

but keep on getting out of the way.

By all means, be safe. Ride friendly, too.

Of course, if you're going to complain about someone elses'
driving, you need to be able to demonstrate that you're riding
as required by local and state ordinances.

Jon

Yes all that is good. My point is that neither calmly relating your
experiences to nodding bureaucrats or screaming and cursing at careless
drivers who can't hear you will assure you that you will be seen by the next
driver at any point in time. To assume otherwise is to beg to be a victim.
I suggest you assume you are invisible and be prepared to get out of the way
when a driver makes an unexpected move. If you read cycling newsgroups you
will see threads about dead cyclist run over by drivers who didn't see them
or weren't paying attention. Twenty to thirty people will rail on about the
stupid drivers and why won't the courts do something about this outrageous
situation. Then the subject shifts to someone who has just bought the
latest and greatest bike. And so it goes. Better to not be the subject of
one of those threads if you can help it. Be mindful of the possibilities at
all times. Aside from that do whatever makes you feel good. Just don't
lull yourself into feeling safe in automobile traffic.

Edward Dolan said:

All that matters when you are cycling is your own safety. Anything else is
secondary by far. Get the hell out of the way of motor vehicles. They do not
want you on the road in the first instance and when they run over you, they
will say they did not see you and get off scot free.

Ed, there's no better point to make than that one. Anticipate. No
from experience what's going to happen and get OUT of the way! After
that, I would still love to get the driver out of the bus and have a
pleasant, civil, discussion with him. Yeah right... Pleasant and
civil. Ha.

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Yes all that is good. My point is that neither calmly relating your
experiences to nodding bureaucrats [n]or screaming and cursing at
careless drivers who can't hear you will assure you that you will be seen
by the next driver at any point in time. To assume otherwise is to beg
to be a victim.

I never suggested we assume such. However, educating public
bus drivers to respect cyclists is not spitting the the wind. Cursing
and screaming is. In the case of repeated, intentionally malicious
and threatening behavior by employees of a public transit
operating company, the corrective action is clear...

I think before you do that you need more information. Stratrider didn't
give enough info to make those assertions.

Quoted message said:

As for not being a victim when cycling, simply "getting out of
peoples' way" isn't the complete answer. Consider which is
safer, hugging the curb or taking the lane. There are a number
of circumstances when the safer, the intelligent thing to do is
to take the lane.

Yes. Always do the safer, intelligent thing. To qoute Mr. Dolan, in the
off chance you've kill filed him, "All that matters when you are cycling is
your own safety. Anything else is secondary by far. Get the hell out of the
way of motor vehicles. They do not want you on the road in the first
instance and when they run over you, they will say they did not see you and
get off scot free. "

"Taking the lane" doesn't mean you are automatically afforded the protection
of the Savior's white light.

Quoted message said:

In the description of the orignially posted incident and in
mine, the issue was not one of "invisibility". It was one of
certain visibility and certain disregard if not vehicular
assault against the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Be mindful of the possibilities at all times.

Obviously we must be aware of the circumstances in
which we ride. But there's no way *always* to be able
to "get out of the way when a driver makes an unexpected
move" under *all circumstances* when riding anymore than
that can be done while driving or walking.

Yes, of course. This is the risk one must consider in cycling.

Quoted message said:

I am keenly aware of cars around me when cycling. In about
15,000 miles of recumbent riding, I have never been hit. I've
had only 2-3 somewhat "close calls" in my last decade of
riding, none life threatening. I have avoided many more
close calls by situaltional awareness and taking action,
usually well in advance, sometimes by slowing down,
sometimes by speeding up, sometimes by getting out
of the way, sometimes by taking the lane...

You've been doing something right. Keep it up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aside from that do whatever makes you feel good. Just don't lull
yourself into feeling safe in automobile traffic.

I don't feel unsafe when riding.

In terms of risk of fataility per hour of exposure, cyclists
are statistically safer than motor vehicle occupants.
Nearly twice as safe, by some measurements:

So you say. In a school bus/bike accident I'll take the bus and you can
take the bike if it will make you feel safer.

"wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes. Always do the safer, intelligent thing. To qoute Mr. Dolan, in the
off chance you've kill filed him, "All that matters when you are cycling
is your own safety. Anything else is secondary by far. Get the hell out of
the way of motor vehicles. They do not want you on the road in the first
instance and when they run over you, they will say they did not see you
and get off scot free. "

Permit me to echo this sentiment. Sure it is possible to be killed, however,
it is also possible to be left with injuries that last a lifetime and that
limit your cycling releated activities to posting on newsgroups. Trust me, I
know!

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Hi Jeff. How about giving us an update on how you are coming along. I
think of you often and your terrible accident. It should be an object
lesson to us all. I trust you are able to do most things that you
previously were able to do even if you are no longer so frisky.

Hi Ed,

Thanks for asking. Like everything in life, my condition is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, I've lost a good amount of weight in the last year. I'm now
185 down from 265. Before you pat me on the back for an iron will, I must
tell you that I did it with surgery. I decided that I simply couldn't live
the rest of my life being that fat. I'll take credit for deciding to have
the surgery, however.

Regarding my injury, the damage that is a result of my spinal cord injury is
permanent. While I have learned to walk again and can sometimes almost look
normal, it is actually quite difficult and not fun at all. I still exercise,
however, and I don't think my friskyness (and I'm not using the word in any
sexual connotation) is diminished.

My feeling is that most places in this country, it is simply not safe to
cycle on the same roads as cars. The cars aren't used to dealing with
cyclists and they consider you a pest. There are a few places that are
bicycle friendly but most are not. My recommendation remains sticking to
rail-trails

I hope that this posting finds you healthy and in good spirits. I see that
you are still on the attack against your favorite dragons. I don't mean that
to be a put down at all. I have completely accepted that you are who you are
and you will always do what you do. We both come together as believing that
it is all for naught anyway as we will end up as piles of dust in the end.

My Best Always,
Jeff

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This newsgroup has really gone to Hell since you left us. JimmyMac is
still here whining and crying like the baby he is and everyone else is
desultory at best. It may be that Tom Sherman has left us permanently,
which would not be such a bad thing. The truth is that we all of us wear
out whatever welcome we initially had. I think about 5 years is the
maximum stay for one and all - no exceptions.

Well if anyone can rescue it from hell it should be you being that you are a
great saint. I certainly can't rescue anything from hell being a sinner from
way back. Being an athiest doesn't help either. I did recently give a talk
about God, however. It is on YouTube and the best place to access it would
be from http://westchesterethical.blogspot.com

I have recently taken up the evil advocation of stalking for fun and profit.
If you think I'm kidding, please read http://jeffgrippe.blogspot.com The
postings are in reverse chronological order so if you want the story from
the beginning you'll need to read the earliest entries first. There are only
four or five entries in total so it isn't a great deal of reading. Now I
know that you don't like clicking on links but I'd really appreciate your
feedback on this. If you don't trust the link, just type the address into
your browser.

Best Always,
Jeff

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote

If you are on a bicycle and a bus is about to run over you
it seems to me that wouldn't be the proper time to dwell
on who is wrong or what led up to the situation, or officials you might
discuss the problem with later. I should
think you would spend that moment coming up with a new
Plan A for getting your butt out of the way.

I have agreed that *not being run over* is preferable to being
run over. I have *not* suggested that at the moment of
pending impact any internal or external dialog about fault or
statistics is useful.

Rather, to reduce the likelihood of someone being between
that bus and a hard place in the future, I *have* suggested

1) educating public bus drivers about driving around cyclists
2) escalating complaints concerning such drivers' behavior as
appropriate
3) riding in a manner that improves visibility and promotes
safer interaction with motor vehicles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spandex racing bike outfit,

On some physiques, I might appreciate such attire,
but not my own. My cycling clothes are inexpensive
and functional.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

leather gloves,

[...] Leather gloves are good.

Ok, but I haven't found a need for them. In a decade
of recumbent riding, I've never used gloves of any sort.
In the times I've gone "rubber side up" on my recumbents,
my hands have never left the handlebar grips.

People who ride low racers and may use hands
to support them at stops might find gloves useful.
The pavement can be dirty, hot, wet, etc...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and a really cool styrofoam helmet?

[...]
I've ridden with helmets of so long I feel uneasy with out one.

I don't have a "cool" h*lm*t, but a rather utilitarian one.
Best feature is the visor. I wear one, but I don't attribute
great protective qualities to bicycle h*lm*ts.

Quoted message said:

What do you say?

I say the h*lm*t flame wars are predictable and uninteresting.

Quoted message said:

So what am I to think? I get the feeling you choose
not to address the issue.

I have, and also attempted to broaden the discussion.
See my comments and suggestions, repeated above.

Quoted message said:

Here's how you handled it the first time:

[ bike vs bus ]

How about Mini Cooper vs. Tractor-trailer rig? %^)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [staticistics for fatality risk per hour of exposure]

Two stories:

1) My family likes to camp and backpack in the Rocky
Mountains. My mother-in-law collects newspaper
clippings about bears and campers and sends them
to us, often just before we leave for a trip. She is
projecting based on what seems common sense to
her that camping and hiking such places where there
are bears, it not camping and hiking in general, is
inherently unsafe. I point out we're at much greater
risk of serious injury or death driving to the trailhead
than once we get there.

She doesn't get it. People are generally pretty poor
judges of relative risk.

2) Often when non-cyclists hear that I ride to some
nearby city for exercise or lunch, they say, "Don't you
feel unsafe out there on the highway or farm to market
roads?" My answer is no. They are projecting based
on what seems to them common sense that cycling such
roads, if not cycling in general, is inherently unsafe. They
don't think driving or riding in a passenger car is unsafe,
yet the number of people killed in motor vehicle accidents
is much larger, both in absolute terms and by hour of
exposure.

They don't get it. People are generally pretty poor
judges of relative risk.

*That doesn't mean I ignore the bears or the buses.*

I take prudent precautions while camping and
hiking, not just for bears, but for other potential
risks.

I take prudent precautions while cycling, not just for
buses, but for other potential risks.

Jon

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote

If you are on a bicycle and a bus is about to run over you
it seems to me that wouldn't be the proper time to dwell
on who is wrong or what led up to the situation, or officials you might
discuss the problem with later. I should
think you would spend that moment coming up with a new
Plan A for getting your butt out of the way.

I have agreed that *not being run over* is preferable to being
run over. I have *not* suggested that at the moment of
pending impact any internal or external dialog about fault or
statistics is useful.

It took a while, but thank you.

Quoted message said:

Rather, to reduce the likelihood of someone being between
that bus and a hard place in the future, I *have* suggested

1) educating public bus drivers about driving around cyclists
2) escalating complaints concerning such drivers' behavior as
appropriate
3) riding in a manner that improves visibility and promotes
safer interaction with motor vehicles

I'm in favor of all that. And I'm ok with you wearing what ever you like.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what am I to think? I get the feeling you choose
not to address the issue.

I have, and also attempted to broaden the discussion.
See my comments and suggestions, repeated above.

Quoted message said:

Here's how you handled it the first time:

[ bike vs bus ]

How about Mini Cooper vs. Tractor-trailer rig? %^)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> [staticistics for fatality risk per hour of exposure]

Same thing. You calculate the fatality risk per hour of exposure, but I'll
take the Tractor-trailer rig regardless of the outcome of your calculations.

Quoted message said:

I take prudent precautions while cycling, not just for
buses, but for other potential risks.

No argument there.

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The only one here who is poor at judging risk, relative or otherwise, is
Jon. Cyclists on the road are few and far between. If there were many,
there would be many deaths.
[...]

Relative risk is a funny thing. There was a time 15 years ago when I had
access to a lab with testing equipment that was willing to do a VO2 Max
(sort of the gold standard of fitness testing) test on me. I had been
training quite hard and I was curious as to what the result would be. For
someone who was healthy, the test carried with it about a 1 in 10,000 chance
of a life threatening adverse event or death.

A physician friend of mine asked me "Are you going to learn anything that
would make a difference in your health care?" I said no and that it was just
a chance to find out how fit I am. He said, "Then don't do this test. 1 in
10,000 events happen all the time." I ended up not doing the test.

So if you were going to tell me that the risk of a serious accident while
street riding were 1 in 10,000, I would say two things:

1. One in 10,000 events happen all the time.
2. It won't make a difference what the odds are after it has happened.

But what can I say? I wouldn't have stopped street riding before my
accident. I was encouraging more people to ride not less. I was getting
another car off the road and I was damn proud of it. The weekend after I got
hit I was supposed to go pick up a Lietra velomobile. I was planning four
season, all weather trike commuting. I had to call the owner from a hospital
bed to tell him I wasn't coming.

Unfortunately, most places in this country, it isn't safe to ride on the
streets. The cars don't like us and don't want to share the road. The car
that hit me wasn't an agressive bike hater. She was someone who didn't
expect to find a bike on the road dispite the fact that I was on the
"official bike route" and that there were signs posted. I think I actually
got hit right near one of the signs.

The City's idea of a bike route was simply to put up some signs. The road
wasn't actually safe to cycle on but the signs gave you a false sense of
security.

The one place I think Ed is wrong is when he says "If there were many, there
would be many deaths.". I think that if there were many then cars would
expect to have to share the road with cyclists. There might be a greater
number of deaths in total but there would be fewer as a percent of cyclists.
So I'm caught in a bind. On the one hand I tell people, "Don't do it. It
isn't safe" and on the other hand I argue that only if more people do it
will it become safer. Go figure!

Jeff

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Sat, 31 May 2008 11:05:49 -0400

Jeff Grippe said:

1. One in 10,000 events happen all the time.
2. It won't make a difference what the odds are after it has happened.

I'd say a 3rd "We all die one day"

I am rather damaged from motorcycle crashes. All single vehicle. I
still ride my motorcycle fast in the twisties because dammit it is
fun!

I ride my recumbent in traffic because I ride it to work. In good
traffic and bad.

everyone gets to make their own decisions as to how bad their traffic
is. By Australian standards Sydney traffic is horrific with narrow
streets and angry people. I have had a couple of incidents of passing
too close or turn across me, but most people are fine.

No idea what traffic's like where you are, but given how people tell
me that Sydney traffic is exactly as you describe, is it that much
different?

People die on the roads all the time. In cars. Thinking they were
safe.

I might well die tomorrow as my uncle did - of a brain aenurism. I
might die as people did at the Granville bridge, in a train
derailment. I might die in a car when someone else smashes into it
through no fault of my own. If I let it bother me I'd never leave the
house.

I like riding. I ride to work for the pleasure of the trip, for the
exercise, I don't pay for petrol, it doesn't matter what time I leave
as the trip takes about the same amount of time, I don't have to find
parking.

Yes, someone might hit me and hurt me. For *me* the game is worth the
candle, the ride is worth the risk. And so far I am not, as far as I
know, dead.

If it is 1 in 10,000 then I guess I have a few more rides to reach the
10,000. So I'll keep going.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent on Sat, 31 May 2008 11:05:49 -0400

Jeff Grippe said:

1. One in 10,000 events happen all the time.
2. It won't make a difference what the odds are after it has happened.

I'd say a 3rd "We all die one day"

And 4th, We all get to make our own decisions.

I didn't die on my bike. I sustained a spinal cord injury that has left me
with a life long pain management problem and while I'm simply too stuborn to
let it take away my athletic activities, I am fighting an uphill battle all
the way. Simple things like walking have gone from enjoyable to down right
unpleasent.

FYI, I live in a suburb of New York City, a small city about 25 miles North
of Manhattan.

Jeff

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It took a while, but thank you.

You're welcome. Check the thread. I've been addressing
the issue of prevention and education all along. And part of
education is that cycling is not inherently unsafe.

Quoted message said:

[...] You calculate the fatality risk per hour of exposure, but I'll
take the Tractor-trailer rig regardless of the outcome of your
calculations.

Hooked.

Then the only reasonable recourse is to be the biggest, baddest
fastest one on the road? It's a flawed generalization that because
in some particular instance greater mass is an "advantage" that it's
an advantage over all.

Say a large number of people put their bikes in their cars and
drive thirty minutes to ride their bikes for an hour and then drive
home. That's something that a fair number of cyclists may do on
a regular basis for weekly club or group rides. During what
portion of this are the people "protected" by more mass, by
highly engineered safety features? During what portion of
this are the people exposed to greater risk of fatality
over all?

Which is perceived as "safer"? Most people think the
time in cars. But it's a strange definition of "safer" where
the risks of fatality are nearly twice as high.

Jon

Wilson said:

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...

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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...

Quoted message said:

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

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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/wireStory?id=4984659

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

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Wilson" <[email hidden]> wrote

a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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_.

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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. %^)

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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/articlerender.fcgi?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.