Now I remember why I quit cycling!

[Bill Anton]

[email protected] (john riley) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Bill Anton) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > > I think I'll try meandering down the sidewalk tomorrow.
> >
> > Don't do it, Dave. One of my old riding partners in Houston is a bicycle enthusiast/attorney,
> > who told me that statistically, you are 4 times MORE likely to get hit by a car riding on the
> > sidewalk than on the street.
>
> Might that not be because statistically most of the riders on the sidewalk are children?

I've heard some really sad stories about children playing around, riding their Big Wheel or playing
hide-N-seek, and getting backed-over by their own Mom in the family Suburban *OUCH!*. Don't know if
those accidents are being counted in the statistic or not.

According to that MIT research paper (cited earlier in this thread) the factor-of-four is only for
wrong-way sidewalk riders. Think about it; how often do drivers waiting to make a right-on-red
actually look for traffic coming from their right before proceeding?

I believe the chief reasons why the sidewalk is more dangerous (in most places) is that cars back
out of driveways, you are less visible to traffic, and more likely to have a collision with a
pedestrian (who are the primary reason sidewalks exist). Here in Lubbock at least, sidewalks are
often discontinuous: some homes and businesses have them and some don't. Having the sidewalk end
suddenly can cause the cyclist to swerve into the street and surprise the unsuspecting motorist.
Often the tree limbs hang down in your path causing a similar scenario. Sometimes the state of
dis-repair of sidewalks can cause an accident all by itself. Then there's the inconvenience of
having to dismount at every street corner to traverse the curb: more fun on a mountain bike than on
a 'bent. In general, I don't like sidewalks, but there are always exceptions to the rule: For
instance, sometimes when traffic is really backed up and cars are waiting three light changes to
make it through the intersection, a sidewalk can be a time saver.

 

[Iliad]

I ride quite a bit on the sidewalks, and I can safely say, it isn't as safe as one might want. My
guess here is that the bike riders in this case are being the idiots, and rushing into
intersections, driveways, etc, without yielding, and the cars are going through those same areas
without yielding. It wouldn't suprise me at all if it was a higher percentage. But, as the study
mentioned, a LOT of people tend to ride on the sidewalks. So, statstically, it really isn't saying
it is safer. It is saying more people get hurt on sidewalks.

It doesn't state any hard facts to show that riding on the road is safer, at all. I would say that
if everyone stopped riding on the sidewalks, and out in the traffic, the sidewalks would then be the
safer venue! But it is a good study overall from the perception standpoint, etc.

By the way, the number one most dangerous form of transportation in the US is being a pedestrian.

"Marvin" <mawego at comcast.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > I think I'll try meandering down the sidewalk tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Don't do it, Dave. One of my old riding partners in Houston is a bicycle enthusiast/attorney,
> > > who told me that statistically, you are 4 times MORE likely to get hit by a car riding on the
> > > sidewalk than on the street.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying, that if you are on the sidewalk, a car will come on the sidewalk and run over you,
> 4 times more likely than if you ride in traffic?
>
> Which is likely to be more fatal?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Might that not be because statistically most of the riders on the sidewalk are children?

 

[Squirebug]

Dave, Have you considered adding a gun rack to your bike? I suppose a 410 loaded with rock salt is
unlikely to be fatal, but will provide a effective deterrant after being used a few times. It is
also possible that it would be unnecessary to actually use the gun if it was highly visible. This
should be easy to arrange on a bent, perhaps more difficult on a df.

If mounted crosswise behind the rider (perhaps on the top of the seat), it would be instantly
recognisable, but increase the effective bike width. The increased aerodynamic drag would be
unfortunate, but perhaps worth the increased security. If mounted vertically it may create less drag
but perhaps be less recognisable to drivers due to the unconventional position. On the other hand,
if the barrel is upright it would provide a convenient place to mount a visibility flag on a
whipstaff.

Best regards, Herb (who lives in England where such things are not done - so I can only dream)

Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 11 Sep 2003 08:51:44 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Anton) wrote:
>
> >Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >> I think I'll try meandering down the sidewalk tomorrow.
> >
> >Don't do it, Dave. One of my old riding partners in Houston is a bicycle enthusiast/attorney, who
> >told me that statistically, you are 4 times MORE likely to get hit by a car riding on the
> >sidewalk than on the street.
>
> I think that number can be easily reduced if going in you know you have to ride defensively and
> are prepared to stop often.
>
>
> >you. A couple years ago, there was a law passed in Texas that says a cyclist has the right to
> >take the lane when it is less than 14 feet wide.
>
> That's fine but an epitaph on my head stone saying "but he had the right to be there" probably
> won't comfort my family much.
>
> > Personally, I always leave myself at least 6 feet of swerve-room between myself and the curb (or
> > parked cars). I assert my position within the lane, but I'm also watching my "6", prepared to
> > swerve into the gutter if necessary (and it seldom is).
>
> I probably wasn't clear in describing the road I have to ride. There is NO room to the right. The
> right lane is no wider than the left. An expressway empties onto this road so the traffic light
> cycle means that eventually I'll have 20 vehicles behind me. I know I have the right to be there,
> but I have several cars behind me (more likely trucks), all doing at least 50mph in a 40, and they
> have no place to go. And I live in a city where the local talk radio king pin rags on cyclist from
> time-to-time.

 

[Dave Clary]

On 13 Sep 2003 03:36:43 -0700, [email protected] (squirebug) wrote:

>Dave, Have you considered adding a gun rack to your bike?

I was thinking more along the lines of some rearward facing Sidewinder missiles. But I think the
best option would be some kind of a disintegrating ray so I won't leave behind debris that would
cause other cyclist to puncture!

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx EZ-1SC Pilot (Texas P-38 Squadron Retired) Home:
http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary P-38 Stuff: http://www.geocities.com/TexasP38/TexasP38.html

 

[Zippy The Pinhe]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:50:47 GMT, Dave Clary <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 13 Sep 2003 03:36:43 -0700, [email protected] (squirebug) wrote:
>
>>Dave, Have you considered adding a gun rack to your bike?
>
>I was thinking more along the lines of some rearward facing Sidewinder missiles. But I think the
>best option would be some kind of a disintegrating ray so I won't leave behind debris that would
>cause other cyclist to puncture!

I like the idea posed by a comic some years ago. Everyone would get a little gun. like the ones we
had in a pre-PC, pre-CPSC era. that shot those rubber-tipped darts. These would shoot darts that
carried a little flag that said "Stupid". When a driver did something, well, Stupid, one would fire
a little dart that stuck to the outside of the car and couldn't be taken off. Any driver seen with
five of these stuck to the car would be pulled over by a cop and taken off the road permanently.

I'd give the cops the disintegrating ray (nice touch) and the quintuply stupid driver would be
vaporized on sight, sparing the court costs.

 

[Richard Corfiel]

In article <[email protected]>, squirebug wrote:
>
> If mounted crosswise behind the rider (perhaps on the top of the seat), it would be instantly
> recognisable, but increase the effective bike width. The increased aerodynamic drag would be
> unfortunate, but perhaps worth the increased security.

If you were to mount it sideways, you'd have to watch for the kickback when firing it. On a
trike it may not be much a problem. On something with two wheels, you may find yourself knocked
over sideways.

> create less drag but perhaps be less recognisable to drivers due to the unconventional position.
> On the other hand, if the barrel is upright it would provide a convenient place to mount a
> visibility flag on a whipstaff.

Hmmm, interesting when the whipstaff is propelled out of the barrel at speed. Also, do shotguns mind
getting rain in them?

I assume you're thinking of wiring the trigger to some control that can be reached by the rider
whilst riding.

- Richard ;-)

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a
one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twighlight Zone.

 

[Squirebug]

Actually, I had envisioned a conventional gun rack such as one sees in pickup trucks. These require
the user to stop, dismount and aim prior to firing (barring very unusual dexterity). Also, I think
it is reasonable to require deliberate action on the part of the gun user to preven accidental
discharge - particularly for young males.

I take your point about rain in the weapon in the case of the vertical mount. Perhaps the solution
would be a rubber covering on the barrel. I suppose the unlubricated typ would be necessary to
prevent accidental loss.

Richard Corfield <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, squirebug wrote:
> >
> > If mounted crosswise behind the rider (perhaps on the top of the seat), it would be instantly
> > recognisable, but increase the effective bike width. The increased aerodynamic drag would be
> > unfortunate, but perhaps worth the increased security.
>
> If you were to mount it sideways, you'd have to watch for the kickback when firing it. On a trike
> it may not be much a problem. On something with two wheels, you may find yourself knocked over
> sideways.
>
> > create less drag but perhaps be less recognisable to drivers due to the unconventional position.
> > On the other hand, if the barrel is upright it would provide a convenient place to mount a
> > visibility flag on a whipstaff.
>
> Hmmm, interesting when the whipstaff is propelled out of the barrel at speed. Also, do shotguns
> mind getting rain in them?
>
> I assume you're thinking of wiring the trigger to some control that can be reached by the rider
> whilst riding.
>
> - Richard ;-)

 

[John Riley]

Whoa, whoa, we are talking about Texas. They see he has a gun, they may figure they can seize the element of surprise and fire first! ;-)