"Bleve" wrote:
> Terry Collins wrote:
>> Actually, it isn't bicycling that is dangerous, it is being forced to
>> ride on roads with drivers that are encouraged to run you over that is
>> dangerous.
>
> Both the crashes I've had while riding were far separated from cars.
> One was on a bike path! Riding bikes is not a risk-free activity.
Yes, but if you look at the deaths it is a different picture. Very few are
not involved with a car.
From:
http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/surveys2.htm
"As a motor vehicle was involved in 92 per cent of fatal accidents to
cyclists in Australia in 1988 (Attewell and Dowse, 1992), the behaviour of
motorists is a critical factor in death and serious injury of cyclists.
Following intensified random checks of speed and blood alcohol, and
improvements in roads, total road fatalities declined by 30 per cent from
1989 to 1992, from 2804 to 1974. The decline has continued, to 1903 in the
twelve months ended October 1993 (FORS, 1993).
The general decline of 30 per cent is reflected in deaths of pedestrians. It
would therefore explain half or more of the 58 per cent decline in deaths of
cyclists."
Seems to sugest that road death improvement is a multi-faceted approach. A
lot of work to change drivers' attitudes and behaviour made cycling safer,
and it still will today. I'd love to see more data on the benefits to
cyclist deaths of the 50kmh residential speed limits and 40 kmh school
zones.
In my youth all the traffic drove down residential streets with a 60 kmh
limit, but usually at 65-70 kmh. But there were more kids riding bikes,
kicking footies, and generally running about, so drivers were also more
aware (I believe) that they had to be ready to slow down. That is often not
the case today as $WDs swerve aroound the streets, lunging through stop
signs and crowding me out as I approach chicanes.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)