Helmet Head

Gene, you didn't answer my question. In particular, do you agree my statement numbered 2 is true? If not, why not?

brokenrobot

Sharks? Where?! OMG! SHARKS!!! Run for your lives!

Helmet Head

Gene, do you see any flaws in my logic here?

Since the vast majority of cyclists deaths do not involve cyclists being hit from behind in daylight, for a given person who is killed while cycling, it is unlikely that he was hit from behind in daylight, and much more likely that he was hit from elsewhere.

Since it is unlikely that a given person who is killed while cycling was hit from behind in daylight, it follows that being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

Please do not dodge this. Do you agree, or do you still contend it is BS? If you still say it is BS, please explain.

genec

I do not dispute your logic, I dispute your stats. I have said that the stats are BS as they do not relate to the problem...

In this particular case of "being hit from behind," you have nothing to show that moving over "more to the left" is better or worse. There simply is no data to show whether it is safer or not. Just as you have no evidence to show that your next 30 years of cycling will be safer or as accident free as your first 30, simply because you now have read and "understand" Effective Cycling.

I also implored you to continue with your message, but forget quoting the stats... that was my entire message.

If there is a flaw in your logic, is it simply because you based the logic on incomplete data. You have a simple Non Sequitur in your logic as there is no way to correlate the data of "being hit from behind" to either lateral position or to cyclists or miles ridden. There is a correlation to time of day, and to other types of accidents, but that is it.

Helmet Head

Gene, you're still dodging!

My logic, with which you say you do not dispute, concludes that "being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight". Yet you have referred to that assertion as BS and a fallacy.

Forget the "stats". Do you agree that "being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight", or not?

Please do not go off on tangents about whether moving over "more to the left" is better or worse. The point in dispute here is not about that, it's about whether "being hit from elsewhere is more likely to kill you than is being hit from behind in daylight" is true or a fallacy.


Gene, the logic in #28 makes no reference to lateral position, cyclists or miles ridden.

The statement simply rests on the assumption that "the vast majority of cyclists deaths do not involve cyclists being hit from behind in daylight". From that alone, I have shown with logic that you do not dispute that it follows that "being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight", yet you still seem unwilling to concede this. Sorry to harp on this so much, but I think it is the essence of differentiates VC proponents from others, BL advocates from BL opponents, etc., and probably most of the debates that we're involved in here. It's a core issue. Please give it some thought. Thanks.

genec

The components you use for the "logic" are flawed.

For instance you say "being hit from elsewhere is more likely to kill you than is being hit from behind in daylight." Yet there is no way to prove this as you do not have any data of accidents where someone was hit from "elsewhere" and simply walked away and no data was collected.

Since you cannot show this and only can show that of all accidents resulting in death, most are not rear collision type, you therefore cannot simply conclude that the other accident types must be more dangerous.

Helmet Head

Gene!

You write, "For instance you say 'being hit ...' Yet there is no way to prove this...", as if I pulled that statement out of my arse. Well, I did originally state it as if it was obvious, but when you questioned it as a fallacy and BS, I came up with a proof for it based on premises that I thought you would certainly accept. It's the CONCLUSION of a logical argument based on a premise and logic that you don't question! If that isn't proof, what is?

According to a logical proof, the conclusion ("being hit from elsewhere is more likely to kill you than is being hit from behind in daylight") follows logically from the premise, "the vast majority of cyclists deaths do not involve cyclists being hit from behind in daylight". Do you understand the significance of that?

If you do not question the premise, nor the logic that leads from the premise to the conclusion, you cannot question the conclusion! That's logic 101! If you still question the conclusion, then you need to go back and make sure that you really don't question the premise nor the logic. But not disputing the premises, nor questioning the logic that leads from those premises to the conclusion, yet still refusing to accept the conclusion, makes no sense. I'll spell it out one more time.

THE PREMISE: The vast majority of cyclists deaths do not involve cyclists being hit from behind in daylight.

THE LOGIC: Since the vast majority of cyclists deaths do not involve cyclists being hit from behind in daylight, for a given person who is killed while cycling, it is unlikely that he was hit from behind in daylight, and much more likely that he was hit from elsewhere.

Since it is unlikely that a given person who is killed while cycling was hit from behind in daylight, it follows that being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

THE CONCLUSION: Being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

genec

OK simple math...

Say 100 cyclists get hit from "some other direction;" 80 of them get up and walk away. 20 are killed.

Say 10 cyclists are hit from behind, all 10 die.

Which accident type is more deadly? 20% died in the first type, 100% died in the second type.

Helmet Head

Gene, a) you're dodging again, b) you really don't get it. Which accident type is "more deadly" (defined as is more likely to kill you if it happens to you) is irrelevant to the question of which accident type is more likely to kill a given cyclist. You're ignoring the importance of the frequency factor.

Consider:

100 cyclists are killed per year.
10 cyclists are hit from behind in daylight, all 10 die.
800 cyclists are hit from "some other direction", 780 walk; 20 die.
2,000 involved in crashes that don't involve getting hit; 70 of those die.

What are the odds a given cyclist dies from...
crash that doesn't involve getting hit... .70
hit from other direction: .20
hit from behind: .10

So, in this example, even though getting hit from behind in daylight is very "deadly" (100%), and getting hit from some other direction is relatively safe (only 20/800, or 2.5%, die) a given cyclist is still TWICE as likely to die from getting hit from some other direction than from behind in daylight.

These numbers are obviously made up, like yours. They are meant to illustrate the irrelevance of your "deadly" factor in determining whether it is true that being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight.

What you are doing is trying to rationalize why it feels like a cyclist is more likely to die from a hit from behind than from elsewhere. I understand. It doesn't feel intuitive. But logic is logic. Compared to the total number of cyclists killed, very, very few get killed from overtaking collisions in daylight (and even fewer when you cull out those where the cyclist swerved in front of the passing vehicle, say to avoid an opening door, or where the motorist drifted into a bike lane or shoulder hitting a cyclist who was not even in his path).

In short, as counter-intuitive as it seems, it is very safe to ride in the path of faster traffic!

My proof that "being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you while you are cycling than is being hit from behind in daylight" remains unaddressed, much less refuted.

C Law

this happens in my area too. What I do is ride about 2 feet to the left of the leave piles in as straight a line as possible. Weaving in an out from the curb is much more dangerour in my opinion. Cars can not anticipate your next movement and you have a better chance at suprising the motorist with a sudden movement. Some people don't like it but I feel that most motorists understand the situation.

bwinton

Gene, Helmet, I call "Hitler" on both of you.

Honestly, you both have to see by this point that this isn't going to be settled here, so switch to water pistols at 50 paces, or see who can trackstand the longest, or whatever, but please either one of you capitulate, or both of you agree to disagree.

Please.

Helmet Head

LOL, except I suspect Gene probably doesn't know what "calling 'Hitler'" means...

Besides, the point we are debating here is absolutely fundamental. Many of our other disagreements stem from it. So, it's worth it to me to hammer the point of how illogical and irrational his position is (and thus, all his arguments that are based on it, including most of his support for bike lanes). Frankly, I'm not sure if Gene really doesn't get it, is in denial, or if he's just giving me a hard time.

genec

The problem with your math is that you are making the assumption that you can do the "batter's average" based on knowing how many accidents occur... you don't have that data. You cannot do a 20/800 calculation as you don't know that the 800 number exists. Nor do you know about the "2000" getting hurt... you only have the "70." The data is woefully missing.

With automotive statistics the insurance companies have a rough idea of the numbers of miles that autos travel in a year, but no such compilation exists for cyclists... either by ridership or by milage, and certainly not by accidents not reported.

Just as an aside and to illustrate my point, you disputed the number of riders on the 56 bike path... the group doing a study on that path did a survey and found an average of 35 riders per hour... who knew?

As I said earlier, go ahead and tell the OP to move more to the left... but the "data" you quoted has no relevance at all to the "why" of being able tell the rider to move... it just ain't there.

genec

OK I am willing to admit I am not familiar with this term... What the heck?

Trackstands, eh? Can I use my fat tire bike???

Hawkear

I believe he is invoking Godwin's Law:

Helmet Head

Do you really think it's significant to our point of disagreement that we don't know how many non-fatal bike-car collisions occur? A fact I'm very willing to concede, of course. The statistics for fatal accidents are available, but of course if a cyclist gets hit by a car, and doesn't get killed, it's likely to not make it in the stats. Of course. Even if he goes to a hospital or doctor, will it get cataloged as a cycling accident? A car-bike collision? Not necessarily. So what?

Don't you recognize that it doesn't matter to our point of disagreement? Why doesn't it matter? Because regardless of whether the number of non-fatal accidents is zero or five hundred million (or anything in between, which of course it is), it's still true that far fewer cyclists DIE from being hit from behind in daylight than from elsewhere, a statistic we do know, and that's the only assumption the proof in #32 is based on, the significance of which apparently continues to escape you.

You're really grasping, and it's not pretty.

noisebeam

HH, Gene... others...

My persepective since I am not backing up statements I made or disagreeing with any specific statement.

Riding well into the lane in my experience can often be the safest approach for a number of factors: visibility, road conditions, clear intent conveyed and others.

But for the experienced cyclist who uses most of the principles of VC has very good proactive measures and defensive measures to avoid the vast majority of accidents. But the type that they (in my opinion and experience) remain most vunerable to is rear/overtaking accidents. Here you are relying on the motor vehicle driver to swerve past you safely. Of course on less busy roads one can see them coming and take proactive measures. But on busy high speed roads cars come up behind you at 50mph, the first car in line you rely on to pass you, suddenly you become visible to the next car that was 15ft behind the first car. You 100% rely on that second, and third car to do the same. I sometimes hear squealing brakes and get very close 6" passes and brushes. In fact I've learned that riding further to the right on narrow outside lane on roads like this minimizes this as it gives more space for fast passing cars to clear you. Being out in the center of the lane actually blocks visibility as sight lines for following cars are blocked by the car in front of them.

Now on the other hand rear collision is the least of my concerns when riding on residential 35mph streets, cars are not closely following one another and speeds are low enough to allow me to see them coming and them to see me in time to react safely. Here the risks are turning and entering vehicles.

Al

genec

Well crap, I was on the internet back in the mid 80's... why doesn't anyone inform us of these latest "laws?"

OK, thread closed.

Uh, wait a minute... I thought Godwin's law implied that one of the folks making the arguments had to invoke the nazi or hitler reference...

Can a trump card be thrown down by anybody?

genec

Sir, the "grasp" is on your part for trying to use that statistic to imply that it is OK to move further left on a roadway simply because: "of all bicycle deaths, this type has the lowest count."


Of all explosives, this type has killed the fewest... therefore it is safe to use...


Riiiiiiight.

noisebeam

I really don't see the reason to 'close' it. Know one is resorting to serious name calling, its on topic, etc. Sure its tedious, sure its gonna go nowwhere, but its only wasting the time of those typing.

Anyway, the bottom line is that a clean road (primarily meaning shoulders/BL) is a safer road, because even if you don't ride where the debris collects, the clean area still gives you an option to ride there if best position at time and an escape place to go if needed.

Al

Hawkear

No:
Keep on keepin' on, fellas!

bwinton

I didn't figure it would work, but it was worth a try. My main point was (as noisebeam said) that it's tedious, and it's gonna go nowhere, and it's wasting the time of those typing. They should move on to more important topics, like whether it's okay to ogle girls, or how fast their commutes were, or whether Critical Mass helps cyclists.

Helmet Head

Gene, you continue to ignore the proof in #32 which makes no reference to where anyone should ride on the street.

And your explosive analogy is lame.

Flying in commercial airliners is a much better analogy. There is a certain risk in getting on board an airplane. After all, it may crash, and, if it does, it will probably kill you. On average, airline crashes kill several hundred people per year (much more than cyclists killed from behind in daylight). The key is that the likelihood of that happening is extremely low. In order to get on an airliner, you have to put that out of your mind. If you can't, there's a word for it: phobia.

Let me ask you this: would you want your pilot to have an irrational fear? How would you feel if you found out at 30,000 feet that your pilot can't stop thinking that there could be a mechanical problem at any time that is completely out of his control and will cause the plane to plunge helplessly into the ocean? Do you think a pilot who obsesses about this can be a very effective pilot?

Yes, it's possible for an airliner to have a mechanical problem that will cause it to crash. But, it's so unlikely, that a responsible pilot has much more serious matters to consider while flying. In particular, he can't have that remote possibility affect what he's doing ("I know we're flying to New York, but our chance of having a mechanical and crashing will be lower if we shorten our air time and land in Kansas City instead").

Yes, it's possible for a cyclist to be hit from behind in daylight. But, it's so unlikely, that a responsible cyclist has much more serious matters to consider while cycling in traffic. In particular, he can't have that remote possibility affect what he's doing ("I know moving left out of the leaf and rubble filled gutter will reduce my chances of getting hit from elsewhere, but my chance of getting hit from behind is lower if I stay in the leaves").

genec

Sigh... I am beginning to think you are right, as in other impasses we have had...

There seems to be no way I can convince Helmet Head that while moving to the left may indeed be the proper move, it cannot be justified using "dead cyclist statistics."

In fact from a purely PR standpoint, I would refrain from using "dead cyclist statistics" at any time I was trying to encourage someone to do something with which they were not presently comfortable.

It's rather like saying "sure go ahead and bungee jump, only 20 people were killed doing it last year, it must be OK... "

Somehow he just doesn't see the irony in that... Or what is missing in the data...

Helmet Head

There seems to be no way you can convince me that moving left cannot be justified with "dead cyclists statistics" because you have not provided any reasons, much less any that are convincing.

Contending that the "dead cyclist statistic" argument is ineffective, as opposed to fallacious, is something else again. Please address the argument in question or concede its validity.

And it's also completely irrelevant to continue whining about "what is missing in the data" when that which is missing has nothing to do with the argument (presented in detail in #32). Show how that missing data is relevant to the argument, address what I said about it in #41, or stop repeating it without basis.