In the US, Automobiles and bikes don't mix very well.

[Walter]

> Now, you should realize that you are a novice at cycling, and you are a novice at finding
> information. Many of us are far, far ahead of you at both - so much so that there are eyes rolling
> and people thinking "Oh, please, not this again!"

I am so not worthy to be in the presence of such an all powerful being as yourself.

I'm surprised there is room on the world wide web for anyone or anything else once your ego has
claimed squatting rights.

>
> (contrary to your belief) cycling is NOT very dangerous.
>
>

I never said It was VERY dangerous, just dangerous, and only on the road, under heavy traffic or
fast traffic conditions. I'm glad you finally acknowledged it and I thank you for acknowledging it.

>
> Here's some overall advice: You need to learn some fundamentals. Try visiting
> www.bicyclinglife.com and reading most of the information there. Follow some links from there
> to other sites concerned with cycling. Then come back here when you've got some grounding in
> the basics.
>

Here is a website for you that espouses all of your claims of safety and justifies the risks with
the overrated rewards of health benefits (which could be just as easily gleaned by riding off the
road as well).

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/index.htm

Its my understanding that the creator/owner/webmaster of this website was unfortunately killed by a
car while bicycling as month.

Take Care, Walter - Novice Sleuth 4th. Class.

 

[Pete]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Also, I don't think they let bicycles on the Autobahn, and the Germans are smart enough not to
> > > want to go there on bikes anyway.
> >
> > Similarly, bikes are not allowed on 99.9% of the interstate highways
here.
> >
>
> Not so. Bikes are allowed on at least some freeways in most western states.

That's why I said 99.9%, not 100%. The actual percentage may be off, though.

Pete

 

[Pete]

"Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > On top of this, a very good British study estimated the health benefits of bicycling outweighted
> > any risk by a 20-to-1 ratio.
> >
> Riding in Europe is different that the US (note the title of the post)

Europe is not a singular block of conditions. Rural Spain is vastly different than downtown Madrid,
which is vastly different than a Dutch bikepath, which is completely different than London, which is
also not the same as riding in Oxford, which can be somewhat similar to downtown Amsterdam, which is
not entirely unlike downtown DC.

All of which I have ridden in.

The point of the British article is that riding a bike can and does bring significant health
benefits. And not only to the individual rider, but to society in general.

> > But by all means, stay off the road until you learn how to follow the rules of the road.
>
> I already know them, but that still won't get me on the road in heavy traffic.

And please don't deride those of us who can and do ride, quite safely, on those same streets.

You feel quite comfortable driving your car in heavy traffic. Because you are experienced. Some of
us have the same level of experience doing the same on bikes, as well as in cars.

Pete

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:25:38 GMT, "Preston Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:14:24 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
>> ** Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities represent approximately 15% of all roadway related
>> fatalities each year.
>
>Which means the other 85% are in cars. Therefore cars are more dangerous. End of story.

Let's apply that logic some more: Suicide committed on the roadway accounts for less than 1% of
roadway fatalities each year, so committing suicide while on the roadway is safer than bicycling.
End of story.

>Preston
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:01:21 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> ** Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities represent approximately 15% of all roadway related
>> fatalities each year.
>
>"...the problem with drunk pedestrians (around 40% of all pedestrians killed in crashes)"
>"...visibility of pedestrians at night (62% of all pedestrian crashes occus after 6:00 PM)
>
>Don't be wandering around drunk at night....

Indeed. I'll try to remember to ride the bike instead... <G>

>Finally, check out this, from our departed friend Ken:
>http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm Is cycling dangerous?
>
>"Putting all this together, a person who choses a bicycle over an automobile for daily travel and
>who obeys the traffic laws and uses care at all times will experience greatly improved health and a
>greatly reduced risk of death as a result. Thus rather than being dangerous, cycling greatly
>reduces major health risks. "

A wise man indeed. He doesn't say (because he doesn't mean) this, though: This is certainly a reason
to avoid an easy piece of safety equipment...you'll be healthier, so don't take an easy extra piece
of protection above and beyond careful cycling, because it will only help protect you to a certain
degree in some accidents.

>Pete
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:53:09 -0500, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>758 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 1998. Again, it looks like cycling is
>safer than walking.

339 suicidists were killed by drowning. Again, it looks like a drowning suicide is safer than
bicycling.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 20 Oct 2003 10:43:13 -0700, [email protected] (Frank Krygowski) wrote:
>Not so. Bikes are allowed on at least some freeways in most western states.
>
>My family and I have cycled hundreds of miles on freeways. Some are unpleasantly noisy, some are
>boring, but many are quite pleasant, and they're almost always perfectly safe for cycling.

Are you talking about interstate highways as we have them in this corner of the US? They have speed
limits of 55 or 65 mph, heavy duty concrete barriers (and sometimes hundreds of feet of grass with a
deep ditch) separating one direction from the other, as well as often the same separating the road
from the land around it, have two to five lanes going each direction, have shoulders littered with
glass and abandoned cars, and have no intersections, just ramps to get on and off.

I've rarely seen interstates that aren't like that, but I suppose they could be different out west,
where the population is not so dense. Ah, someday, to move west and spread out a bit, get some elbow
room, and get some quiet roads for bicycling...

>- Frank Krygowski
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Pete]

"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote

> A wise man indeed. He doesn't say (because he doesn't mean) this, though: This is certainly a
> reason to avoid an easy piece of safety equipment...you'll be healthier, so don't take an easy
> extra piece of protection above and beyond careful cycling, because it will only help protect you
> to a certain degree in some accidents.

And why the need to inject helmets into this particular sub-thread?

Pete

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > But by all means, stay off the road until you learn how to follow the rules of the road.
>
> I already know them, but that still won't get me on the road in heavy traffic.

Walter, we don't want you in heavy traffic. It's clear you're afraid, so it's just as well. You stay
on the path where you're comfortable, OK? But just because you are afraid, it doesn't mean that the
rest of us need to feel the same way. You don't have to convince us to be like you for you to just
keep on doing what you'd like to do.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist: http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at: http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

 

[David Reuteler]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
: Are you talking about interstate highways as we have them in this corner of the US? They have
: speed limits of 55 or 65 mph, heavy duty concrete barriers (and sometimes hundreds of feet of
: grass with a deep ditch) separating one direction from the other, as well as often the same
: separating the road from the land around it, have two to five lanes going each direction, have
: shoulders littered with glass and abandoned cars, and have no intersections, just ramps to get on
: and off.

them the ones. they actually aren't at all bad. the shoulders are generally H-U-G-E and you often
have very little choice. i've ridden for hundreds of miles across south dakota, wyoming, colorado,
washington and oregon on interstates.

rumblestrips are the damn problem, tho in the more civilized states they run parallel to the road
and actually divide the shoulder from the road fairly often they run perpendicular across the entire
shoulder and are quite annoying. oh, and the ramps are a little tricky.

i find a fair number of low volume but narrow highways (in say, colorado or oregon) far more
unnerving than interstates.

besides washington state gives away free coffee in the rest stops (starbucks, i'm sure) .. and you
don't get that on no local highway.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:13:48 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
Society wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:53:09 -0500, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>758 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 1998. Again, it looks like cycling is
>>safer than walking.
>
>339 suicidists were killed by drowning. Again, it looks like a drowning suicide is safer than
>bicycling.

Nice try, but no cigar. The intent of suicide is to create a fatality. The intent of cycling is not.
You're welcome to try again, though.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I guess you guys got BIG MUSCLES from doing too
much STUDYING!

 

[Kevan Smith]

On 20 Oct 2003 14:46:36 -0700, [email protected] (Walter) from
http://groups.google.com wrote:

>> Enjoy the bike path, and be polite to the rest of us on the road when you roar by in your SUV.
>> Pretty simple, isn't it?
>
>I will, I promise. Even if others don't.

You should get rid of your SUV and replace it with something that doesn't suck oil from the earth
like a liposuction machine on Roseanne Barr. Namely, use a bike instead.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Alex's car slams the red and nightmare shoes

 

[Kevan Smith]

On 20 Oct 2003 14:52:58 -0700, [email protected] (Walter) from
http://groups.google.com wrote:

>I already know them, but that still won't get me on the road in heavy traffic.

I was on the road in heavy traffic today on a bike with no gears anda flimsy brake. It was a blast.
Kind of like a zen experience. At no time was I in any danger.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com The entire CHINESE WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all share
ONE personality -- and have since BIRTH!!

 

[Kevan Smith]

On 20 Oct 2003 15:19:06 -0700, [email protected] (Walter) from
http://groups.google.com wrote:

>Its my understanding that the creator/owner/webmaster of this website was unfortunately killed by a
>car while bicycling as month...

No, he was killed by a person driving a car. The person was drunk.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com a brain tissue lash about an ice nerd

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:07 GMT, "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> from Comcast
Online wrote:

>Walter, we don't want you in heavy traffic.

I do. I want him pumping his fist in the air at the next Critical Mass when the horns honk and the
bikes just plough on through the intersection.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com a meat kills on a lovely penguin

 

[Preston Crawfor]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:51:56 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:25:38 GMT, "Preston Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:14:24 -0700, Walter wrote:
>>
>>> ** Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities represent approximately 15% of all roadway related
>>> fatalities each year.
>>
>>Which means the other 85% are in cars. Therefore cars are more dangerous. End of story.
>
> Let's apply that logic some more: Suicide committed on the roadway accounts for less than 1% of
> roadway fatalities each year, so committing suicide while on the roadway is safer than bicycling.
> End of story.

Excellent point.

Preston

 

[Preston Crawfor]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:07 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:

>
> "Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> > But by all means, stay off the road until you learn how to follow the rules of the road.
>>
>> I already know them, but that still won't get me on the road in heavy traffic.
>
> Walter, we don't want you in heavy traffic. It's clear you're afraid, so it's just as well. You
> stay on the path where you're comfortable, OK? But just because you are afraid, it doesn't mean
> that the rest of us need to feel the same way. You don't have to convince us to be like you for
> you to just keep on doing what you'd like to do.
>

That's spot on and the bottom line. We shouldn't need any more posts.

Seriously. Walter's problem is he wants us to think like he does. Sorry. I'm not afraid. I ride in
traffic and love it. I ride my skateboard in the middle lane in downtown Portland and switch lanes
to make turns, how does that grab you, Walter???? I bet that REALLY sounds scary.

Preston

 

[Preston Crawfor]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:43:43 -0500, Kevan Smith wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:57:07 GMT, "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> from Comcast
> Online wrote:
>
>>Walter, we don't want you in heavy traffic.
>
> I do. I want him pumping his fist in the air at the next Critical Mass when the horns honk and the
> bikes just plough on through the intersection.

HAHAHAHA. He's going to be in Critical Mass to protest AGAINST cyclists being traffic.

Preston

 

[Buck]

"Peter Rosenfed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> You seem to enjoy lumping all non-automobile road users into the same category. Motorcycling is
> dangerous because of the available speed. Motorcyclists have the advantage of better
> maneuveribility and better views of the road, but the speed trumps. Bicycles have the same
> advantages without the temptation of speed.

And let's not forget the Hurt study! (easily found with a google search).

The Hurt study found that young, inexperienced riders (less than three years exp.) with no
professional training (92% self-taught or taught by friends or family) were statistically
overrepresented in the study.

Other factors that are over represented: "cafe or chopper" style bikes record of previous ticket or
accident no motorcycle license, no license at all, or license revoked

Over half of the accidents involved: less than 5 months rider experience rider error in
single-vehicle accidents (usually a slide-out from over-braking or running wide on a curve)

The biggest problem here is one of perception. The statistics show that cycling is about as
dangerous as driving a car (per hour exposure), but you will also find that the statistics are
heavily skewed towards children being hit on residential streets. So, by Walter's logic, nobody,
especially children, should ride on residential streets.

IF you are hit, you have a greater risk of injury than someone in a car. No one here denies that.
But being hit is a rare experience. Personally, I have over 25 years of exposure and have been hit
by a car exactly once, with no injury whatsoever. I find that people are more than accomodating in
traffic and unpleasant incidents are rare, although they are a popular topic of discussion around
here. You will also find that a particularly popular topic is how risky riding on bike paths can be.

What it comes down to, Walter, is that you are biased in a particular way and don't want to listen
to reason when it comes to cycling. There are many people around here that have much greater
experience than you. Cycling just isn't as dangerous as you perceive it to be.

-Buck

 

[Dennis P. Harri]

On 20 Oct 2003 11:29:50 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected] (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

> Helmets really aren't designed, tested or certified to protect against the types of impacts that
> cause the typical cycling fatality.

but they DO help to prevent some serious head traumas.