Roadies, do you use rear-view mirrors

[David Damerell]

Jack Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>Of course I use a rear view mirror - I'm traffic, right? Am I going to drive my car without rear
>view mirrors?

This is a defective analogy, because visibility from a car is otherwise quite poor compared to that
from a bicycle.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!

 

[Mark Hickey]

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

>[email protected] says...

>> There is an external factor causing bias in those statistics. Children younger than 16-18 are not
>> permitted to drive cars! However, they are permitted to ride bicycles, do so in large numbers,
>> and make up a large portion of the cycling accidents.
>
>Good point, and one I hadn't thought of while reading those stats.

The stats also include riders who do dumb stuff that most of us wouldn't dream of doing. I saw a guy
run over (well, his bike was run over, he was fine) while riding the wrong way down a bike lane. The
car came to the stop sign, stopped while the driver looked left, and proceeded. Splat.

Just the other day I was driving (yes, occasionally that happens...) and I was in the same position
as that car. I pulled up, stopped (really stopped, BTW), looked both ways, waited for traffic, then
proceeded to pull out - only to see a bike in the bike lane going the wrong way right beside me. He
had the foresight to stop, and I probably wouldn't have hit him... but I have to wonder what is the
motivation to ride the wrong way in a bike lane? I suspect it's an irrational fear of being hit from
behind (trading that remote possibility for a much higher possibility of being hit from the
side/front).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Carl Fogel]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] says...
>
> >> There is an external factor causing bias in those statistics. Children younger than 16-18 are
> >> not permitted to drive cars! However, they are permitted to ride bicycles, do so in large
> >> numbers, and make up a large portion of the cycling accidents.
> >
> >Good point, and one I hadn't thought of while reading those stats.
>
> The stats also include riders who do dumb stuff that most of us wouldn't dream of doing. I saw a
> guy run over (well, his bike was run over, he was fine) while riding the wrong way down a bike
> lane. The car came to the stop sign, stopped while the driver looked left, and proceeded. Splat.
>
> Just the other day I was driving (yes, occasionally that happens...) and I was in the same
> position as that car. I pulled up, stopped (really stopped, BTW), looked both ways, waited for
> traffic, then proceeded to pull out - only to see a bike in the bike lane going the wrong way
> right beside me. He had the foresight to stop, and I probably wouldn't have hit him... but I have
> to wonder what is the motivation to ride the wrong way in a bike lane? I suspect it's an
> irrational fear of being hit from behind (trading that remote possibility for a much higher
> possibility of being hit from the side/front).
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

Dear Mark,

Rick Onanian just inflamed my digressive urges in another thread, so now it's your turn, but
certainly not your fault.

Along the same lines of the statistics not revealing those who "do dumb stuff that most of us
wouldn't dream of doing," consider the fatal rattlesnake bite statistics in the U.S.

North American rattlesnakes are considerably less deadly than their South American relatives. As a
rule of thumb, heading south is a bad idea if you plan to let a rattler bite you.

Yet every year the statistics show people dying from rattlesnake bites--often healthy adults who
ought to survive with minimal medical care.

It turns out that the majority of adults killed by rattlesnake bites in the U.S. are bitten on the
face and neck, quite dangerous and unusual sites, and also refuse medical treatment, having been
bitten in pursuit of their religious beliefs that the faithful can handle serpents with impunity.

To drift back to your complaint about bicyclists riding the wrong way down bike lanes, they are
indeed a caution. The bike lanes in the one-way streets of the City Park in Pueblo are clearly
marked, but I avoid them like the plague, since I'm usually breaking the 20 mph speed limit and have
learned to my sorrow that bicycles coming the wrong way down the bicycle lane around corners head-on
into me are too exciting for my taste.

Carl Fogel

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:51:35 -0600, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> would be of only occasional value. In addition to that, I find the things somewhat difficult to
>> use because the mirror is not in a fixed relationship to the roadway. I'm not always sure *where*
>> the car is that's behind me as a result. I presume that practice can result in perceptual
>> learning to compensate, but the mirror seemed of such little utility that I've never spent the
>> time....
>
>That is exactly why I prefer handlebar mounted mirrors to helmet/eyeglass mounted mirrors.

That's actually the reason why I chose a helmet mirror instead of a handlebar mirror. The
bike-mounted mirror only points in one direction; you can change the helmet mirror just by turning
your head a couple degrees.

Okay, two more reasons, but not related to the effectiveness of the mirror: One helmet, many bikes;
and a bike mounted mirror is not fabrizio-approved!

>Tom Sherman - Planet Earth
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Pat]

">
> BTW, I once attended an engineering education conference where one of the other attendees had his
> mirror clipped to his glasses for the entire conference. Apparently, he never takes it off!
>
> I don't think I could ever attain that impressive level of geekdom. But I bet a guy with an eagle
> on his helmet might!
>
>
> --
> Frank Krygowski

I am impressed by the guy with the mirror clipped permanently on his glasses. I would have liked to
witness that!

Pat in TX

 

[Jack Murphy]

Of course I use a rear view mirror - I'm traffic, right? Am I going to drive my car without rear
view mirrors? Duh! What was that movie, the italian sports car, first thing the guy does is rip off
the mirror? But that's stupid.

I love being able to quickly scan behind me with a simple turn of my head. I never have a hard time
locating where the car is behind me, I can scan to check for turners, I see a ton back there.

Another great use is at stoplights, to check out folks trying to turn right. I take the lane as
needed, if they have a turn signal on I move to the left and let them turn behind me. I don't want
ANYONE turning right in front of
me.

I'm so used to my mirror that I look for it when I'm out walking. Whoops, wrong mode of
transportation..

jm

 

[Pat]

> > I know I've avoided crashes by being defensive in a car, for example by waiting an extra second
> > after my light turns green to see if that guy coming on the cross street is going to get stopped
> > or not, and that attitude definitely spills over to a bike as well.

> >
> Very good advice. Just because I have the green doesn't mean someone isn't coming. I lost count of
> how many cars I saw yesterday entering intersections AFTER the light changed to red.

When I read the above post, I just sighed. Lately, when I am in my car, I HAVE to wait an extra
second because I can't see anything but the huge SUVs on either side of me! Not only that, but SUV
drivers have an annoying habit of surging a bit forward past the white strip on the road before they
stop. There is no way I can see if any cars are running a red light.

Pat in TX

 

[O Wtf]

"Carl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
> >
> > >[email protected] says...
> >
> > >> There is an external factor causing bias in those statistics.
Children
> > >> younger than 16-18 are not permitted to drive cars! However, they
are
> > >> permitted to ride bicycles, do so in large numbers, and make up a
large
> > >> portion of the cycling accidents.
> > >
> > >Good point, and one I hadn't thought of while reading those stats.
> >
> > The stats also include riders who do dumb stuff that most of us wouldn't dream of doing. I saw a
> > guy run over (well, his bike was run over, he was fine) while riding the wrong way down a bike
> > lane. The car came to the stop sign, stopped while the driver looked left, and proceeded. Splat.
> >
> > Just the other day I was driving (yes, occasionally that happens...) and I was in the same
> > position as that car. I pulled up, stopped (really stopped, BTW), looked both ways, waited for
> > traffic, then proceeded to pull out - only to see a bike in the bike lane going the wrong way
> > right beside me. He had the foresight to stop, and I probably wouldn't have hit him... but I
> > have to wonder what is the motivation to ride the wrong way in a bike lane? I suspect it's an
> > irrational fear of being hit from behind (trading that remote possibility for a much higher
> > possibility of being hit from the side/front).
> >
> > Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Rick Onanian just inflamed my digressive urges in another thread, so now it's your turn, but
> certainly not your fault.
>
> Along the same lines of the statistics not revealing those who "do dumb stuff that most of us
> wouldn't dream of doing," consider the fatal rattlesnake bite statistics in the U.S.
>
> North American rattlesnakes are considerably less deadly than their South American relatives. As a
> rule of thumb, heading south is a bad idea if you plan to let a rattler bite you.
>
> Yet every year the statistics show people dying from rattlesnake bites--often healthy adults who
> ought to survive with minimal medical care.
>
> It turns out that the majority of adults killed by rattlesnake bites in the U.S. are bitten on the
> face and neck, quite dangerous and unusual sites, and also refuse medical treatment, having been
> bitten in pursuit of their religious beliefs that the faithful can handle serpents with impunity.
>
> To drift back to your complaint about bicyclists riding the wrong way down bike lanes, they are
> indeed a caution. The bike lanes in the one-way streets of the City Park in Pueblo are clearly
> marked, but I avoid them like the plague, since I'm usually breaking the 20 mph speed limit and
> have learned to my sorrow that bicycles coming the wrong way down the bicycle lane around corners
> head-on into me are too exciting for my taste.
>
> Carl Fogel

Good point. I've consistently found that one of the most mishap-prone places to ride is on special
"bike paths". They are crawling with idiots, joggers, skaters, dogs being walked, etc., etc. I you
need some macabre amusement, just head to a bike path and watch the collisions happen.

 

[Cheg]

"WTF,O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Good point. I've consistently found that one of the most
mishap-prone places
> to ride is on special "bike paths". They are crawling with idiots,
joggers,
> skaters, dogs being walked, etc., etc. I you need some macabre
amusement,
> just head to a bike path and watch the collisions happen.
>
>

Unless you find one that practically no one uses, like the first 10 miles of the Interurban trail
between Seattle and Everett this time of year. I've seen as many rabbits as people on the trail in
the last month. We do have other trails around here that fit your description, though.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Rick Onanian wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:51:35 -0600, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> would be of only occasional value. In addition to that, I find the things somewhat difficult to
> >> use because the mirror is not in a fixed relationship to the roadway. I'm not always sure
> >> *where* the car is that's behind me as a result. I presume that practice can result in
> >> perceptual learning to compensate, but the mirror seemed of such little utility that I've never
> >> spent the time....
> >
> >That is exactly why I prefer handlebar mounted mirrors to helmet/eyeglass mounted mirrors.
>
> That's actually the reason why I chose a helmet mirror instead of a handlebar mirror. The
> bike-mounted mirror only points in one direction; you can change the helmet mirror just by turning
> your head a couple degrees.
>
> Okay, two more reasons, but not related to the effectiveness of the mirror: One helmet, many
> bikes; and a bike mounted mirror is not fabrizio-approved!

With the eyeglass/helmet mounted mirror I can tell there is a motor vehicle somewhere behind me, but
little beyond that. With the handlebar mounted mirror I have a pretty good estimate of bearing,
distance and closing speed. I find the helmet mirror acceptable for two-lane rural roads but insist
on the handlebar mounted mirror for riding in traffic.

As always, YMMV.

As for the final contention, NOTHING about my bicycle [1] is "Fabrizio approved".

[1] < http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>With the eyeglass/helmet mounted mirror I can tell there is a motor vehicle somewhere behind me,
>but little beyond that. With the handlebar mounted mirror I have a pretty good estimate of bearing,
>distance and closing speed. I find the helmet mirror acceptable for two-lane rural roads but insist
>on the handlebar mounted mirror for riding in traffic.

There is another point of view, and that is that the mirror is an unnecessary crutch.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes:

I believe in the risk compensation theory of cycling as regards helmets and mirrors. I think that
riders place too much emphasis on those sorts of technology and not enough emphasis on generally
safe and aware operation.

Absolutely nothing, IMHO, beats holding one's line in traffic with one's head on a swivel. Perhaps
you'd like to see my head on a stick for saying this, but the fact is that objects in the mirror may
be farther away, closer, or bouncing all over the place than they appear.

The easiest way not to depend on a mirror is not to have one.

And I know that there are cyclists who will say, "I know that, and I always shoulder check and don't
rely on my mirror."

To that I say bushwah. If you have it, you'll use it.

And some day it will let you down.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Jeff Starr]

"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> There is another point of view, and that is that the mirror is an unnecessary crutch.
>
> I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes:
>
> I believe in the risk compensation theory of cycling as regards helmets and mirrors. I think that
> riders place too much emphasis on those sorts of technology and not enough emphasis on generally
> safe and aware operation.
>
> Absolutely nothing, IMHO, beats holding one's line in traffic with one's head on a swivel. Perhaps
> you'd like to see my head on a stick for saying this, but the fact is that objects in the mirror
> may be farther away, closer, or bouncing all over the place than they appear.
>
> The easiest way not to depend on a mirror is not to have one.
>
> And I know that there are cyclists who will say, "I know that, and I always shoulder check and
> don't rely on my mirror."
>
> To that I say bushwah. If you have it, you'll use it.
>
> And some day it will let you down.

You know what I don't understand? It is why you guys assume that safety equipment is going to make
you less safe. Do you really think that once you get a mirror, you suddenly feel invincible? Now I
have a mirror, no need to ever look behind or to the side, I have a mirror! It has been mentioned
before, in this thread, but do you use mirrors, when you drive a car? It is a similar concept. I
believe it is important to check your blind spot, and not put your total faith in a mirror. I think
it is riskier to constantly look behind you, particularly in heavy traffic. You check the mirror, it
looks ok, then you turn your head. You check the mirror, it doesn't look ok, you maintain your line.
A good mirror, doesn't bounce all over the place. Have you ever ridden a motorcycle? Did you remove
those mirrors? I don't want your head on a stick, unless it casts a nice shiny, nondistorted image.
Using a mirror is a personal choice, and won't have any effect on me, one way or another, if you
don't use one. For me, the mirror is helpful. I would kind of like to see your "head on a swivel".
Mine is attached by a neck. Jeff

 

[Mark Hickey]

"WTF,O" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Carl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote

>> > Just the other day I was driving (yes, occasionally that happens...) and I was in the same
>> > position as that car. I pulled up, stopped (really stopped, BTW), looked both ways, waited for
>> > traffic, then proceeded to pull out - only to see a bike in the bike lane going the wrong way
>> > right beside me. He had the foresight to stop, and I probably wouldn't have hit him... but I
>> > have to wonder what is the motivation to ride the wrong way in a bike lane? I suspect it's an
>> > irrational fear of being hit from behind (trading that remote possibility for a much higher
>> > possibility of being hit from the side/front).

>> To drift back to your complaint about bicyclists riding the wrong way down bike lanes, they are
>> indeed a caution. The bike lanes in the one-way streets of the City Park in Pueblo are clearly
>> marked, but I avoid them like the plague, since I'm usually breaking the 20 mph speed limit and
>> have learned to my sorrow that bicycles coming the wrong way down the bicycle lane around corners
>> head-on into me are too exciting for my taste.

>Good point. I've consistently found that one of the most mishap-prone places to ride is on special
>"bike paths". They are crawling with idiots, joggers, skaters, dogs being walked, etc., etc. I you
>need some macabre amusement, just head to a bike path and watch the collisions happen.

FWIW, the incidents I described were both on bike LANES, not "paths". Big difference. In both cases,
they were wide, well-marked lanes adjacent to the regular car traffic. I too avoid bike paths as
much as possible (though on occasion do use one that runs JUST where I need to go, but I approach it
with caution, and always expect the worst).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Carl Fogel]

"cheg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<arywb.223421$9E1.1223575@attbi_s52>...
> "WTF,O" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Good point. I've consistently found that one of the most
> mishap-prone places
> > to ride is on special "bike paths". They are crawling with idiots,
> joggers,
> > skaters, dogs being walked, etc., etc. I you need some macabre
> amusement,
> > just head to a bike path and watch the collisions happen.
> >
> >
>
> Unless you find one that practically no one uses, like the first 10 miles of the Interurban trail
> between Seattle and Everett this time of year. I've seen as many rabbits as people on the trail in
> the last month. We do have other trails around here that fit your description, though.

Dear Cheg,

Unfortunately, it's often the charming little-used paths that have the worst problems.

On a nicely paved river trail where I see rabbits, squirrels, coyotes, foxes, deer, antelope,
softshell turtles, snapping turtles, box turtles, rattlesnakes, bullsnakes, garter snakes, red
racers, great blue herons, bald eagles, turkeys, road runners, quail, burrowing owls, great horned
owls, badgers, skunks, and other wildlife, I once came around a shady turn on a sunny day and nearly
hit a foot-high metal stake hammered into the asphalt.

The people at the nearby picnic table were upset when I stopped, yanked both of their horseshoe
stakes out, and threw them into the river.

Carl Fogel

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 25 Nov 2003 17:24:43 -0800, [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>Unfortunately, it's often the charming little-used paths that have the worst problems.
<snip>
>skunks, and other wildlife, I once came around a shady turn on a sunny day and nearly hit a
>foot-high metal stake hammered into the asphalt.

Gee whiz...I'm almost beginning to like this state now. Most of our MUPs are nearly deserted, very
clean, and 100% trouble-free. They're actually reasonable and fun places to ride a bicycle, even at
high speeds.

>The people at the nearby picnic table were upset when I stopped, yanked both of their horseshoe
>stakes out, and threw them into the river.

I would have pounded the stakes into those people's hearts, and stuffed their necks into the
horseshoes. Either that, or thrown the stakes into the river and continued riding. Ooh, how about
using the stakes for spearfishing in the river...

>Carl Fogel
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Trent Piepho]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] says...
>
>>> There is an external factor causing bias in those statistics. Children younger than 16-18 are
>>> not permitted to drive cars! However, they are permitted to ride bicycles, do so in large
>>> numbers, and make up a large portion of the cycling accidents.
>>
>>Good point, and one I hadn't thought of while reading those stats.
>
>The stats also include riders who do dumb stuff that most of us wouldn't dream of doing. I saw a
>guy run over (well, his bike was run

That doesn't bias the statistics though, because they also include dumb drivers who do stuff most of
us wouldn't dream of doing.

Now you might say that drivers who are reckless, careless, habitual drunkards, and downright
malicious aren't allowed to have licenses. But I don't believe
it. It's nearly impossible for an adult to lose their license, and if they do, they just
drive anyway.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jeff
Starr) wrote:

> "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > There is another point of view, and that is that the mirror is an unnecessary crutch.
> >
> > I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes:
> >
> > I believe in the risk compensation theory of cycling as regards helmets and mirrors. I think
> > that riders place too much emphasis on those sorts of technology and not enough emphasis on
> > generally safe and aware operation.

> > The easiest way not to depend on a mirror is not to have one.
> >
> > And I know that there are cyclists who will say, "I know that, and I always shoulder check and
> > don't rely on my mirror."
> >
> > To that I say bushwah. If you have it, you'll use it.
> >
> > And some day it will let you down.
>
> You know what I don't understand? It is why you guys assume that safety equipment is going to make
> you less safe. Do you really think that once you get a mirror, you suddenly feel invincible? Jeff

I've done my heavy commute both ways, and I've come to a middle ground on mirror use.

I agree with Jeff's ideas on mirror usage: first of all, I found that with a well-adjusted helmet
mirror, my rear vision was clear and useful. Then I stopped using one for minor reasons (couldn't
get it adjusted right with my new bike, so I gave it to my father).

I now ride the same commute without the mirror. Here are my observations:

-I think I had better situational awareness with the mirror than without.

-in most circumstances, whether cyclists like to think about it or not, a 2-3m wide vehicle
approaching from the rear on a collision course with 20+ km/h of closing speed is a very
hard obstacle to avoid, and doesn't give much notice compared to the same car about to miss
you by a good 50
cm. And if anything, I consider that on the low side for closing speeds and on the high side for
clearances.

-I will probably experiment with a mirror or two on my commuter rig sometime soon, but I would
consider adding more reflective material to the bike a higher priority.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[O Wtf]

"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Nov 2003 17:24:43 -0800, [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >Unfortunately, it's often the charming little-used paths that have the worst problems.
> <snip>
> >skunks, and other wildlife, I once came around a shady turn on a sunny day and nearly hit a
> >foot-high metal stake hammered into the asphalt.
>
> Gee whiz...I'm almost beginning to like this state now. Most of our MUPs are nearly deserted, very
> clean, and 100% trouble-free. They're actually reasonable and fun places to ride a bicycle, even
> at high speeds.
>

Where IS this paradise of rational behavior?? Where I am, even the bike LANES (yeah, those
designated bikes-only parts at the right edge of paved roads) are hazardous, being often occupied
by joggers who seem to think the lanes are for THEM. Damned near mowed a couple down this morning
as a matter of fact as I came over the crest of a small rise and found them in my lights.

> >The people at the nearby picnic table were upset when I stopped, yanked both of their horseshoe
> >stakes out, and threw them into the river.
>
> I would have pounded the stakes into those people's hearts, and stuffed their necks into the
> horseshoes. Either that, or thrown the stakes into the river and continued riding. Ooh, how about
> using the stakes for spearfishing in the river...
>
> >Carl Fogel
> --
> Rick Onanian

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>You know what I don't understand? It is why you guys assume that safety equipment is going to make
>you less safe. Do you really think that once you get a mirror, you suddenly feel invincible?

Not exactly. I believe that the mirror facilitates carelessness.

>Now I have a mirror, no need to ever look behind or to the side, I have a mirror! It has been
>mentioned before, in this thread, but do you use mirrors, when you drive a car? It is a
>similar concept.

Actually, it turns out not to be similar. Cars have blind spots that are independent of mirrors
whereas bicycles do not.

>I believe it is important to check your blind spot, and not put your total faith in a mirror. I
>think it is riskier to constantly look behind you, particularly in heavy traffic. You check the
>mirror, it looks ok, then you turn your head. You check the mirror, it doesn't look ok, you
>maintain your line.

Good thinking except that the mirror becomes part of the task load.

>A good mirror, doesn't bounce all over the place. Have you ever ridden a motorcycle?

Yes.

>Did you remove those mirrors?

No, because with a full face helmet on my rear visibility was less than in a car. That isn't the
case on a bicycle. A typical sport motorcycle has good suspension and mass, it isn't a 30 pound
unsuspended commuting bicycle on rough pavement.

>I would kind of like to see your "head on a swivel". Mine is attached by a neck.

A figure of speech. My point was that it isn't hard to be 360 aware on a bicycle without a mirror,
and probably is a better style to learn in general operation.

I'm actually trying to do you a favor here and advise you not to drink the Kool-Aid, you'll find
quite a number of posts advocating all sorts of mirrors.

I'm dead set against them, for the reasons I've all ready stated.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Anybody43]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message
>> "cheg" Good point. I've consistently found that one of the most mishap-prone places to ride is on
>> special "bike paths". They are crawling with idiots, joggers, skaters, dogs being walked, etc.,
>> etc. I you need some macabre amusement, just head to a bike path and watch the collisions happen.
> Unfortunately, it's often the charming little-used paths that have the worst problems.

Hi,

You might be interested in: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/2decades.html Two decades of
the Redway cycle paths in Milton Keynes

It describes the safety record of "Now more than 200 km in extent, this is one of the largest urban
cycle path networks of its kind, built without the financial or land constraints typical of an
existing conurbation" and compares it with cycle users of the adjacent road network.

"Most people perceive motor traffic to be the main danger to cyclists. Cycle paths such as the
Redways, which keep cyclists away from motor vehicles, are therefore thought de-facto to be the
safest routes for cyclists to use. In Milton Keynes considerable evidence has accumulated to
challenge this view."