Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 26, 9:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Why do you say it is obviously laughable?
>
> Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
> to the library and look at the original
> source for this 'information.' It's in a
> magazine called Design News, appended
> to an article about car fires. The date of
> the issue was October 4, 1993. The
> article had nothing to do with bicycling.
> Check it out and tell us if you can:
>
> -- determine if the numbers are for the
> previous year (1992), or for some other
> year, or for a year's worth of data, or
> a decade's, or a month's, or forever...
>
> -- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
> kids or just to adults.
>
> -- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
> or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
> or the whole world's population of cyclists.
>
> -- determine what methodology was used
> to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
> (regardless of what place or time period
> the chart is concerned with), a necessary
> step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'
>
> -- ETC.
>
> I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
> not there for our edification and enjoyment.
> I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
> confidential!
>
> This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
> useless. The number itself might be right on the
> mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
> this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
> undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
> would do such a thing??
>
>

Does the name "jtaylor" ring a bell? ;-)

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>> On Mar 27, 1:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of
>>> >> bicycle working trips,
>>>
>>> > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by
>>> > bicycle.

> Beats 0.5% Tucson's 2.2% sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
> I don't believe Seattle endures as much rain or snow as
> Tucson. And Seattle ain't exactly a flat ironing board.

> because there are so many
> other things to take into consideration. For example,
> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?

This is why I brought out the next post about the census tracts that have
10% of the entire state's bicycle commuters. While I was pedaling to work
yesterday, I thought about it. These census tracts are more or less near the
University, so that accounts for some of it. But the other factor may be
that these census tracts are also near the Burke-Gilman, a non-motorway.
About a month ago, I was riding on the BG after dark, and it was in the
upper 30s and raining. The section I rode, from the U-Village mall to
Montlake, is one of the more heavily used sections, but even so, I was
really struck by the number of bikes coming the other way. People are not
recreationally cycling when it's that cold and dark, in February. People
were using the BG transportationally: balancing shopping bags on their
handlebars, toting their briefcase or books in a messenger bag -- that sort
of thing.

Unlike some other rail-trails, the Burke Gilman goes to useful places: major
employers like the University, Children's Hospital, and Adobe; to shopping
destinations like U-Village; to transportation hubs (like me, that evening,
pedaling to the Montlake Freeway Station); through many residential
neighborhoods. I wonder to what extent the BG is a factor in people's
decisions to ride to work.

--
Warm Regards,


Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 27, 2:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> ...there are so many
> other things to take into consideration. For example,
> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?
>
> Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets?

I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about
helmets".

Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more
cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain,
local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences,
etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And
any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say,
using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their
bike in ideal situations.

The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet
laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 27, 8:42 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...there are so many
> > other things to take into consideration. For example,
> > how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
> > less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?
>
> > Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets?
>
> I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about
> helmets".




I guess this means that Frank Krygowski *doesn't* read his own drivel!

Now, the question is, does this indicate a lack of self-awareness on
Krygowski's part, or does it indicate a kind of low animal
cunning? ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Mar 2007 07:42:59 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mar 27, 2:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>
>> ...there are so many
>> other things to take into consideration. For example,
>> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
>> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?
>>
>> Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets?
>
>I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about
>helmets".
>
>Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more
>cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain,
>local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences,
>etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And
>any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say,
>using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their
>bike in ideal situations.
>
>The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet
>laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling?
>
>- Frank Krygowski


Aw, c'mon, Frank.

Send an easy one over, won't you?

If there is a _single_ instance of MHLs encouraging cycling it is yet
to make an appearance on this newsgroup, or on any of the rational
helmet websites.

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned
>> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for
>>
>> "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
>> MHL with prison terms."
>
>
>Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
>what I wrote into a call for a MHL.
>


Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL"?

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 27, 1:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

> None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus",
> "laughable", and so on.
>
> If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones
> are...
>
> O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?- Hide quoted text -

You're not getting it, jt.

There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is
kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not.

Robert

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Mar 2007 14:23:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mar 27, 1:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus",
>> "laughable", and so on.
>>
>> If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones
>> are...
>>
>> O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?- Hide quoted text -
>
>You're not getting it, jt.
>
>There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is
>kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not.
>
>Robert

So if one cannot tell if they are bogus, why are you asserting that
they are?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 27, 9:38 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned
> >> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very
> >> newsgroup.
>
> >> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for
>
> >> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
> >> MHL with prison terms."
>
> >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
> >what I wrote into a call for a MHL.
>
> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL?


Are you

a) stupid

b) insane

c) stupid *and* insane

?

 

[Bill]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:38 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2007 06:00:15 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned
>>>> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very
>>>> newsgroup.
>>>> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for
>>>> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
>>>> MHL with prison terms."
>>> Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
>>> what I wrote into a call for a MHL.
>> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL?
>
>
> Are you
>
> a) stupid
>
> b) insane
>
> c) stupid *and* insane
>
> ?
>
You guys should 'get a room' of your own. Every year someone starts this
damned 'Helmet war' and it never goes away.
Please, thread, die.
Bill Baka

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Mar 2007 15:12:18 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>
>> >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
>> >what I wrote into a call for a MHL.
>>
>> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL?
>
>
>Are you
>
>a) stupid
>
>b) insane
>
>c) stupid *and* insane
>


Insults are a sign that the user has no other support.

(For the purposes of this thread, "pro-MHL" is not an insult, just a
description of Ozark's position.)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 27, 5:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2007 15:12:18 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >> I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong MHL
> >> >> with prison terms.
>
> >> >Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
> >> >what I wrote into a call for a MHL.
>
> >> Um, so by "MHL" you didn't mean "MHL?
>
> >Are you
>
> >a) stupid
>
> >b) insane
>
> >c) stupid *and* insane
>
> Insults are a sign that the user has no other support.
>
> (For the purposes of this thread, "pro-MHL" is not an insult, just a
> description of Ozark's position)
>
>

Thanks for the succinct display of your insanity, "j"; I promise to
post links to this anytime anyone shows any signs of taking you
seriously.


TTFN. ;-)

 

[David Tang]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate
>>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the
>>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year
>>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place,
>>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed
>>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US
>>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest
>>countries.
>>
>>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the
>>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether
>>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation.
>>
>
> You seem to be missing the point.
>
> One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is
> that they think it is dangerous.
>
> People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
> the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
> helmet.
>


Yes, I am missing the point. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted
what I did.

I get that some people consider cycling dangerous, but as you've said,
it's just one of the common reasons they give for not cycling. And
I agree, helmets don't help.

> The USofA has an abyssmally low cycling rate, compared many other
> countries.
>
> The USofA has more helmet laws, more people subject to them, and has
> had them for longer than any other country.
>
> We know that MHL's decrease cycling.
>
> We know that as cycling increases, the rate of injury to cyclists
> drops.
>
> "What to do about it" is simple - get rid of the MHL's.

By "What to do about it" do you mean to increase cycling, consequently
decreasing the rate of injuries? But as several people (but especially
frkrygow) have noted, the rate of injury is already so low anyway, the
difference is one of infinitesimals. So who cares how many people
cycle besides cyclists? The car drivers certainly appreciate having
less cyclists on the road.

The point I believe frkrygow is trying to make is:

MHLs decrease the cycling population. More people get less exercise.
Less exercise leads to obesity and health problems. Therefore, if
there were no MHLs, the general population would be healthier as a
result.

Since you did not mention this, can I conclude that you have also
missed the point? Or perhaps you failed to mention this because
the situation is very complex, there are multiple points, and that
the reason folks in power haven't seen the light and repealed MHLs
is because they are not as convinced as you of the resulting effect?

Because the situation is complex, one can appear to "miss the point".
Also, not everyone shares the same "point". I think that's why
we end up in these protracted discussions. The key is how to make
the discussions productive.

- David

P.S. It's possible I've missed other points that frkrygow has tried
to make, but hopefully I've made my point.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> >You're not getting it, jt.
> >
> >There is no way to tell what those figures are estimates OF. That is
> >kind of a prerequisite to determining if they are bogus or not.
> >
> >Robert
>
> So if one cannot tell if they are bogus, why are you asserting that
> they are?

What I am saying is this -- you guys look
like massive retards trying to pass off this random
chart, with no explanation for what the 'figures' are
even supposed to estimate, as data of any useful
sort whatsoever. It's really not very hard, for most
people.

Curious -- What do you think these figures are estimates
of, jt? Why do you think that, since no such information
was given? Do you have ESP or something? You obviously
haven't even seen this chart in its original form; I suggest
you look it up and save yourself some embarassment.
It's way too late for Krygowski.

I'm just trying to help. But if you continue to insist
that this somehow constitues useful data, I will
continue to make fun of you for it.

Laughable, yes.

Robert

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> On 27 Mar 2007 07:42:59 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mar 27, 2:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>>>
>>> ...there are so many
>>> other things to take into consideration. For example,
>>> how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
>>> less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?
>>>
>>> Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets?
>>
>>I'm not aware of anyone saying it's "/always/ or /simply/ about
>>helmets".
>>
>>Certainly, other influences exist. Certainly, you'd expect more
>>cycling in certain places than in others, due to climate, terrain,
>>local culture, density of development, infrastructure differences,
>>etc. Any of those could tend to encourage or discourage cycling. And
>>any of them would have _some_ individuals bucking the trend - say,
>>using their bike despite lots of disincentives, or not using their
>>bike in ideal situations.
>>
>>The question is, what are the effects of helmet promotion and helmet
>>laws? Do they tend to encourage or discourage cycling?
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Aw, c'mon, Frank.
>
> Send an easy one over, won't you?
>
> If there is a _single_ instance of MHLs encouraging cycling it is yet
> to make an appearance on this newsgroup, or on any of the rational
> helmet websites.

Nobody's talking about MHLs encouraging cycling, just
doubt about your extrapolations from your favourite numbers
as to how much you purport they discourage cycling.

And I'm here to say that cycling lives on -- not heroically, but
with an undeterred and humble will-to-survive, even in MHL zones.


What the heck -- cheers and good ride to everybody,
Tom

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 27, 11:25 pm, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... as several people (but especially
> frkrygow) have noted, the rate of injury is already so low anyway, the
> difference is one of infinitesimals. So who cares how many people
> cycle besides cyclists? The car drivers certainly appreciate having
> less cyclists on the road.

That last sentence is probably true for some car drivers. But I think
most of us are motorists as well as cyclists, so I assume some
motorists are fine with promoting cycling. Also, there are probably
motorists who admire and encourage cycling, even if, for whatever
reason (fear, handicaps, etc) they don't do it themselves. They could
see it as an environmental benefit, or as just removing another car
from the road.

But personally, I think we cyclists _should_ care about how many
people cycle. There's certainly data that indicates that more cycling
yields safer cycling. It probably makes it easier to get amenities
like bike racks outside businesses, bike racks on the front of buses,
policies allowing bringing bikes on commuter trains, etc.


> The point I believe frkrygow is trying to make is:
>
> MHLs decrease the cycling population. More people get less exercise.
> Less exercise leads to obesity and health problems. Therefore, if
> there were no MHLs, the general population would be healthier as a
> result.

There's more. I have concerns about the whole "cycling is dangerous"
message that's constantly used to promote helmets. There have been
several attempts to use the lack of a bike helmet as a "contributory
negligence" defense when a motorist has carelessly violated a law and
injured a cyclist.

Similarly, I've known cyclists that got injured by drivers, but the
drivers were never even ticketed. I think this is caused partly by
the notion "You knew it was dangerous when you got out there on a
bike."

If helmets were promoted merely as flashy, stylish headwear so you
look like a racer, I would probably laugh at the promotions but
otherwise ignore them. But I find too much harm in the "Cycling is
Dangerous!" message, and too much dishonesty in the "Helmets work
wonderfully!" message.

I don't see how this "Cycling is Dangerous!" mindset can do us any
good at all.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill]

Tom Keats wrote:
> Nobody's talking about MHLs encouraging cycling, just
> doubt about your extrapolations from your favourite numbers
> as to how much you purport they discourage cycling.
>
> And I'm here to say that cycling lives on -- not heroically, but
> with an undeterred and humble will-to-survive, even in MHL zones.
>
>
> What the heck -- cheers and good ride to everybody,
> Tom

Ah, what the heck.
Have you heard this one? It made the news some years back (decades) so I
am vague on the details. One very protective mother had a little girl
who she always had wear a helmet when riding, hence her head was safe.
One day the girl was in a fluffy mood and didn't pay attention going out
the door of the house and down the 2 (only 2) concrete steps. She
tripped and fell, hitting her head on the edge of the lower step and was
killed, just walking out of the house to catch the school bus.
MHL's for kids anytime they go out of the protective house???
Chew on it.
Accidents happen.
I'm just sitting on the fence watching you guys.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:

> Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't
> exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do,
> you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger
> or other peon come along and make you look like a
> massive retard.

But enough about Global Warming. <eg>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 28, 12:24 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Hey, it's reeeeaaal simple, people. If the data doesn't
> > exist, don't attempt to wish it into existence. If you do,
> > you run the risk of having some lowly bike messenger
> > or other peon come along and make you look like a
> > massive retard.
>
> But enough about Global Warming. <eg>

Thinking of Franky Krygowski conjures up images of "hot gases" for
you, too, eh?

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> The date is given.

Nope. You made it up.

BTW, do you understand why your assertion that
these numbers are from 1993 has zero chance of
being correct?

> So is the source.

The source could be God -- it wouldn't make
the figures any more useable in the absence
of the minimum necessary information.

> So is the fact that they are
> fatality risks.

At least you got that part right.

> So you are questioning the "US" part of what I said,
> because that wasn't specifically called out?
>
> In my experience, the vast, vast majority of accident data posted in
> the US is data _for_ the US. That's the default situation, and there
> are thousands of US publications that don't specify that; they assume
> the reader will know.

First of all, that's simply false. Second, what do
you think the 'default situation' is for a publication
(like Design News) that is published in Japan,
China, and Poland in addition to the US? Is there
some guy in China claiming that 'of course these
numbers are for China, that's the 'default situation'
for publications distributed in China?'


> Good grief. The figures I've seen from roughly 8 developed countries
> were quite similar - all having less than one fatality per million
> hours bicycling, IIRC.

You've made this claim before but I don't think
you've ever managed to post a citation of any
sort for these alleged studies. Please post a
cite so the folks at home can check out these
peer-reviewed journals at our local well-stocked
research libraries.

> In addition, I'm not aware of any significant
> changes taking place year by year, except for a very gradual downward
> trend, probably caused by improved medical techniques.

You might want to look at the advance numbers
for 2006.

And 'improved medical techniques?' Try dwindling
usage of bikes by kids. Kids under 16 accounted
for about one third of fatalities just ten years ago;
now they account for only one fifth.

> It's your contention that the data doesn't exist. But professionals
> in many countries have published data that, in their opinion, does
> exist. So we've got a group of research professionals on one side of
> the argument, and a bike messenger on the other.

Let's be clear. Any 'research professional' who has
studied this issue and doesn't have their head firmly
implanted in their ass can tell you that the only
halfway reliable data here is the number of fatalities.
That information is enough to tell us that the fatality
rate for cycling in the US must be pretty low. But
any claims of per-hour rates would be well into the
realm of fuzzy guesswork and conjecture based on
extremely limited information.

Why can't you admit this simple fact?

Robert, lowly messenger