buzzman

(bold mine)


I don't understand why you say you "could not disagree more" and then go on to say "cycling...should be much safer" and add the caveat of other nations with more strict lability and and/or non -auto centric traffic law. Do you think I am opposed to such things. I am also saying that cycling should be safer.

We do seem to be in some disagreement about the safety of cycling as opposed to motoring. by "many measures" I take it you are cobbling the scant statistics that exist regarding numbers of cyclists, miles travelled etc and comparing them to the more accurate measures of miles travelled by automobile. If such weak foundations of evidence support your illusion that you are safer traveling by bicycle then I will not waste my time attempting to dissuade you. Bicycling, as you rightly point out, is a relatively safe activity under most conditions and if you are comforted by the thought that you are safer cycling than driving that thought may actually keep you safer.

I am, however, much more of the skeptic and pragmatist, and while it would certainly be nice to believe that I am safer bicycling than driving I think the math may be against me. For one thing, there are such poor actual cyclist counts and often they are inflated in favor of more cyclists for a variety of reasons. Also, even occasional riders claim to ride for more days of the week and far more miles than they do in reality so most surveys and questionnaires are flawed. I think given the fatality rate we fare better than motorcyclists (mostly due to our slower speeds- and possibly our lane position- but that is really arguable) but we do fall on the less safe side of automobile travel.

The simplest metric may be to do a crash test much in the way they crash test models of automobiles. Drive a car into a cement wall at 20 mph all strapped in and air bagged and then do the same thing on your bike- which fares best? The conclusion is obvious. That kind of simple logic and reality, for me at least, outweighs unsupported miles per rider statistics that attempt to prove otherwise.

Which brings us to another point of apparent disagreement. You felt my posts increase the perception on the part of the general public that cycling is an unsafe activity. You feel advocates' time is better spent convincing the general public cycling is a safe activity under the status quo. I feel advocates need to do more to change the status quo and make it safer. There are cities, regions, states, even certain countries where cycling is already quite safe- you may live and ride in such a region- but my experience, especially as someone who rides in a lot of diverse locales, is that this is by absolutely no means universal. There are a ton of places in the US that desperately need improvement and convincing people who live those areas that they are just as safe on their bikes as they are in their cars is, in my opinion, dangerous, disingenuous and not good advocacy.