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

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Walter, Oct 17, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick Onanian 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.

    I trust you're talking about knee pads. Right?

    --
    Frank Krygowski
     


  2. Walter wrote:

    >>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)

    Apparently it is. Because when Bernard Cohen (of the University of Pittsburgh) studied much the same
    situation in the US, he arrived at a 35-to-1 ratio in favor of cycling.

    --
    Frank Krygowski
     
  3. Walter wrote:

    >>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.

    Not all powerful. More knowledgeable than you, though. Deal.

    >>(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.

    Oh please. The word "dangerous" means nothing without at least some standard for comparison. Tying
    your shoes is dangerous - you can topple over and die from a head injury.

    By rational standards of comparison, cycling is not dangerous enough for a novice to wander into an
    established discussion group and warn those with much more experience. Certainly, _that_ is true!

    >>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.

    Ken was a friend of mine, a very wise man who was killed by a repeated drunken driver. And your
    using his unfortunate death in this way is slimy.

    But still: I've had four other friends that died by riding in motor vehicles, and I've known even
    more that sustained serious or permanent injuries.

    If I give you their names, will you go to rec.automobiles.driving and warn everybody there?

    --
    Frank Krygowski
     
  4. Buck

    Buck Guest

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

    > 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.

    HAH!! And that explains why children are over represented in the cycling death statistics. They must
    be riding in "heavy or fast traffic conditions." Get your head out of the sand. Kids on bikes are
    killed on residential streets, just like kids who are pedestrians are killed on residential streets.
    The vast majority are killed while in cars.

    If you are serious about protecting your grandchildren, your best bet is to quit driving them around
    in your truck. And for a guy your age, you should be more concerned with health risks associated
    with cancer and heart disease - neither of which are associated with cycling!

    -Buck
     
  5. Rick Onanian wrote:

    > 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?

    I don't know what corner of the US you're in. We rode them in the Montana, Washington and Oregon, at
    least. Probably some other states I'm not thinking of, too.

    --
    Frank Krygowski
     
  6. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:40:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> from Youngstown
    State University wrote:

    >Ken was a friend of mine, a very wise man who was killed by a repeated drunken driver. And your
    >using his unfortunate death in this way is slimy.

    I concur. Me 2.

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com My mind is making ashtrays in Dayton ...
     
  7. On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:11:16 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

    like about 50% off. most western states allow bikes on interstates outside of urban areas, and that
    mileage probably adds up to somewhere between 50% and 60% of the total interstate mileage.
     
  8. "Walter" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > 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.

    Just wondering if you were ever nervous about driving your car in heavy traffic?

    I know when I began driving, I certainly was! It took some time, and experience, to gain the
    confidence to drive in such an environment.

    Just a matter of experience and confidence. No belting down a stiff drink to fortify myself. No
    therapy sessions to put my fears in perspective. No visit to the priest to clear my sins before
    setting out!

    Just going out and actually doing it! Superhuman (or fool) status not required!

    SMH
     
  9. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:40:31 GMT, "Preston Crawford" <[email protected]> from EarthLink Inc. --
    http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:

    >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.

    Then annoying him shoudl be extra fun, no?

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I know how to do SPECIAL EFFECTS!!
     
  10. [email protected] (Walter) 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)
    >

    The stats for British bicyclists are very siumilar to Americans. Actually slightly higher (0.46 for
    the English vs. 0.41 for Americans): www.sudibe.de/articles/dangerous.pdf But for all practical
    purposes, the same. Check out Chart 5 for a comparison of cyclist risk in most European countries.
    Guess what - it is about the same as the US - higher in some, lower in others.

    And, BTW,many European countries have a higher automobile fatality rate than Britiain, leading to
    this interesting conclusion: "Cycling in England is safer than driving in many other countries,
    including Frace and Belgium". That means cycling in the USA is also safer than driving in those
    countries.

    Do you even know what the American automobile fatality rate is compared to Western European
    countries?

    Rather than post your "feelings" all over the net, why don't you do a bit of research and find out
    what the real situation is? Add information to the discourse, not noise.

    -Peter Rosenfeld
     
  11. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Dennis P. Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:11:16 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > That's why I said 99.9%, not 100%. The actual percentage may be off,
    though.
    > >
    > > Pete
    >
    > like about 50% off. most western states allow bikes on interstates outside of urban areas, and
    > that mileage probably adds up to somewhere between 50% and 60% of the total interstate mileage.

    While my '99.9%' may be way off, I'd like to see some verification of '50% to 60% of total US
    interstate mileage'.

    Pete
     
  12. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:33:45 -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

    You demonstrate my point oh so well. A simple tally means nothing. A rate is useful -- per hour for
    recreational cyclists who want to compare to other recreational activities, and per mile for
    commuters and car-replacers.

    >intent of cycling is not. You're welcome to try again, though.

    Okay. 35 deaths per year for skydiving. 35 for skiing. 0 to 3 deaths per year for NASCAR racing.

    By Kevan's logic, we're safer skydiving, skiing, or NASCAR racing than we are taking a shower. Stop
    taking showers! Get in the stock car! It's the only place you can be safe!
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  13. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:26:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Rick Onanian wrote:
    >> 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.
    >
    >I trust you're talking about knee pads. Right?

    Knee pads aren't easy. Have you ever worn them? They chafe the back of the knee, they are very
    sweaty, and limit your motion. That's all I can remember now, but if I think of more, I'll
    write again.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  14. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:20:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Are you talking about interstate highways as we have them in this corner of the US?
    >
    >I don't know what corner of the US you're in. We rode them in the Montana, Washington and Oregon,
    >at least. Probably some other states I'm not thinking of, too.

    Sorry, I should have specified: New England, more specifically, Rhode Island. Here, we have signs on
    every entrance-ramp that specifically prohibit bicycles and pedestrians (as well as horses,
    etc)...but even if it was legal, I see enough people drifting in and out of the shoulder randomly
    (right over the rumble strips, even!) that I'd be too scared to ride there.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  15. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:03:39 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
    Society wrote:

    >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:33:45 -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
    >
    >You demonstrate my point oh so well. A simple tally means nothing.

    No, you're just being stupid. By any measure you choose, cycling is safer than driving. Stop being
    dense. Your mama taught you better.

    --
    real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com I want EARS! I want two ROUND BLACK EARS to make me
    feel warm 'n' secure!!
     
  16. Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
    : Sorry, I should have specified: New England, more specifically, Rhode Island. Here, we have signs
    : on every entrance-ramp that specifically prohibit bicycles and pedestrians (as well as horses,
    : etc)...but even if it was legal, I see enough people drifting in and out of the shoulder randomly
    : (right over the rumble strips, even!) that I'd be too scared to ride there.

    the first time i rode my bike down a interstate entrance ramp was a trip. i got a pretty big kick
    out of it. i had always wanted to do that (you can't in minnesota where i nominally live).

    the big reason to ride on interstates tho is that you're guaranteed services every 40 miles or so.
    that's not always true on smaller highways out west.

    i think you're seriously overstating the danger level. think rural not city (tho i did ride through
    cheyenne, wy on i-80 and i-25). people may drift into the shoulder but IME they're consideranbly
    less likely to do so if someone is there. in fact most people switched lanes if they could even tho
    it wasn't strictly speaking necessary. if they didn't they pulled over in their lane.

    the traffic noise was annoying. it was about the only time i wore my headphones fully (both ears).
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  17. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On 21 Oct 2003 22:30:15 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:
    >i think you're seriously overstating the danger level. think rural not city (tho i did ride through
    >cheyenne, wy on i-80 and i-25). people may

    That would be the difference. Even suburban, or even rural between cities, or within an hour's drive
    of a city...

    >drift into the shoulder but IME they're consideranbly less likely to do so

    Not around here. While I haven't seen enough pedestrians on the shoulder of the interstate to
    observe a trend in how the drivers react, it's not uncommon to see drivers suddenly swerve to avoid
    a car abandoned in the shoulder (probably after looking up from their newspaper or cellphone).

    >if someone is there. in fact most people switched lanes if they could even tho it wasn't strictly
    >speaking necessary. if they didn't they pulled over in their lane.

    On the interstates here in RI, it's rare in daylight that everybody (or even most, or even half)
    could change out of the right lane. Too many are boxed in to their lane too much of the time.

    They do pull over in their lane, but one can't count on which direction they'll drift when
    they do. <G>

    >the traffic noise was annoying. it was about the only time i wore

    I imagine it would be intolerable here.

    >my headphones fully (both ears).

    That's illegal here, AFAIK.

    It's nice to know that other regions provide cycling-friendly interstates; it's a drag that there's
    no reasonable route to my girlfriend's house from mine on bike.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  18. Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
    :>my headphones fully (both ears).
    : That's illegal here, AFAIK.

    Eeek.

    : It's nice to know that other regions provide cycling-friendly interstates; it's a drag that
    : there's no reasonable route to my girlfriend's house from mine on bike.

    i've a messenger friend who claims to ride on highway 62 and i believe I-35 running through
    minneapolis. apparently no one has ever stopped him.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  19. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    [email protected] (Walter) wrote:

    > Now lets talk bicycles, In my opinion bikes and cars don't mix. That's just the way things are.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong, I wish this wasn't the case, and I think we should all try to change things
    > for the better. But I believe the best way to end up as "Road Pizza" is to have the attitude that
    > you have as much right to ride on the road as an automobile, and you are going to exercise that
    > right without regard to the reality that the most people who are zooming inches away from you
    > aren't even conscience you exist.

    Actually, the right to use the road is limited mainly to bicyclists. Motorists can be granted
    permission to use the roads if they meet certain legal, physical, and operational requirements. The
    right of a cyclist to use the road is not limited in such a way.

    I think we'd all be much better off if the roads were returned to the exclusive use of cyclists and
    muscle-powered vehicles. They were ours first, after all. The motorists really have made a tragic
    mess of them.

    Chalo Colina

    "If the driver of an automobile sees a team of horses approaching, he is to stop, pulling over to
    one side of the road, and cover his machine with a blanket or dust cover which is painted or colored
    to blend into the scenery, and thus render the machine less noticeable." -- from the rules of the
    Farmer's Anti-Automobile Society of Pennsylvania
     
  20. [email protected] (Peter Rosenfed) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Walter) 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)
    > >
    >
    > The stats for British bicyclists are very siumilar to Americans. Actually slightly higher (0.46
    > for the English vs. 0.41 for Americans): www.sudibe.de/articles/dangerous.pdf

    I posted the wrong URL. It should be: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

    And the numbers refer to fatalities per million hours.

    Apologies

    -Peter R.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...