In article <
[email protected]>,
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein writes:
>
> >> These are four lane roads. What has that to do with having a 15MPH
> >> bicycle directly in front of you after the car ahead has moved into
> >> the left lane with you going at least 35MPH with a another car next
> >> to you? That is the hazard that some bicyclists do not visualize
> >> when they ride on these streets, where car tires normally pass
> >> within inches of the curb (no sidewalk).
>
> > I challenge you to cite even one case where a bicyclist was struck
> > from behind under the conditions you describe.
Are you advocating that such a situation doesn't pose a danger to the
cyclist? Are statistics required to confirm a seemingly simple concept:
that speeding motorists encountering an unexpected obstacle (i.e., a
cyclist) have a greater likelihood of involving themselves in accidents
than otherwise? Leave alone one's right to ride the road, and
motorists' culpability in the outcome, for the time being, strictly
from the perspective of maintaining one's health, the conditions
described above are to be avoided.
But, by your insistence on stats, it appears you don't consider this
situation sufficiently perilous. Well, "there are lies, damn lies, and
there are statistics."
From my cursory acquaintance with the causes of local (urban Toronto)
bicycle/auto accidents, the most common factor among them was that the
cyclist was riding from the sidewalk onto the roadway at the time.
Typically, the cyclist rode out into traffic and into the path of a
vehicle. Most sidewalk cyclists are novices or children, and don't
apprehend the myriad hazards of their habits. And, indeed, since the
dangers of traffic seem remote among the pedestrians, they may be
encouraged in their misconceptions.
But even the most inexperienced rider has little trouble viscerally
perceiving the consequences of a speeding auto motoring up his ****. To
wit, getting rear ended while riding on just such a road as Jobst wrote
of. Therefore, because the possibility of injury is so easily
apprehended, he avoids the situation, and the stats reflect, not that
the practice is dangerous, but that, because proportionately few are
engaging in it and therefore injuring themselves, it doesn't pose much
of a hazard.
We've some tall bluffs in Toronto. No one's died this year falling from
those cliffs, while 53 pedestrians have been killed in traffic so far.
I suppose one could infer from those stats that traversing the
Scarborough bluffs is safer than crossing a street - and in some cases
it very well may be.
And therein lies the rub: how much of an actual hazard is posed? That's
for the concerned cyclist, hopefully informed by his experience as well
as local factors, to determine.
A friend, a casual cyclist, was rear ended in a hit and run several
years ago. Lots of lights, easily visible; he woke up in the hospital
with his head stapled together, broken bones, etc.. My first question
to him upon his recovering was: What were you doing on THAT road? The
conditions of that route - traffic flow at 70+ KM/H, early morning,
after last call on a Friday - virtually assured that IF an accident
occurred, the consequences would be severe.
That he was law abiding and lawfully entitled to ride that road was
cold comfort. What price to pay for advocacy? Where's the logic in
securing a right at the cost of the ability to exercise or enjoy it?
Luke
