unkchunk

I couldn't believe it. The first day after summer ends they got around to cleaning the streets. It's nice riding now, but would have been better last May. Perhaps it was for school kids, I don't know.

For the next hour of my ride, all I could think about is in about a month the leaves will start to fall, and in this area people rake them into long piles along the side of the road for vaccuum trucks to pick up. Those piles will be in the part of the road I'm using now. These leaf piles will be about 1 to 2 feet high and line the curb area of the road. Any thoughts on how to deal with this future problem? I mean, apart from not riding through the leaves.

Helmet Head

What's wrong with riding on the road that is constantly being swept clean by traffic?
Not only do you avoid the leaves by riding there, but also glass, nails, thorns, branches and other rubble that can causes punctures or even crashes.

unkchunk

Uhm... mostly because of Ford, Chrysler, Jeep, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Volvo, Volkswagon, Saab, Subarau, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Honda, Hyundai, Scion, Saturn, Mercury, Jaguar, Dodge, Lincoln, Buick, Oldsmobile, AMC, Crosley, Austen Healey (1 3000 and 2 bug eye Sprites), Austin Martin (a Logonda), Morgan (only in the summer), Triumph, International Harvester, Mini, Mazda, Deere, Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, Bluebird, MCI, Winnebago, Isuzu, Avanti, Frieghtliner, Audi, Infiniti, Geo, Plymouth, Buick, Cadillac, American LaFrance, Chevrolet, GMC, Grunman, Porsche, Pontiac, Lexus, Land Rover, one Ferrari and a couple of modular buildings. Yep, that's about it. You know, I think I could take that old Crosley.

Dougmt

You are gonna get along here just fine
Doug

Litespeed

It took me 4 phone calls to get a bridge swept that probably hadn't been swept in at LEAST a year. This bridge is used by a lot of cyclists. Just about every week when it wasn't done, I would call again. It did finally get done and I called to thank them. Maybe they will put it down as the regular routine sweeping area (fingers crossed) I hope. If not, guess who is calling them again.

tippy

There's a difference between the end of summer and the end of summer vacation. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you meant the latter. Autumn doesn't begin here until September 22 (Autumnal Equinox).

d.tipton

Helmet Head

That's what I thought, more or less, but did not want to make any assumptions...

Again, not to make any assumptions, are you mainly concerned that if you ride outside of the rubble, further to the left where the pavement is swept clean, that you will be run over from behind?

If so (okay now I am making an assumption, so ignore this if the assumption about your main concern is false), are you aware that the percentage of the approximate 700 U.S. cyclists deaths per year that involve cyclists being run over from behind is very small, and almost all of those occur in poor lighting conditions (usually at night in areas without street lighting) when the cyclist is riding without lights and reflectors? Still assuming this is your concern, do you contend that your concern has a rational basis? If so, what is it?

genec

Just as an aside, are you aware that overtaking collisions (those from behind) tend to be the worst kind... so while the "being hit from behind accident" occur least often, percentage wise they tend to be the most harmful. Are you also aware that even if a cyclist does not die, the act of being laid up from injuries such as a broken leg can be a real pain?

This is not to imply that one shouldn't ride in the lane or move further left, but simply point out that statistics suck. One doesn't have to die to still have an awful time in an accident.

Helmet Head

Worse than fatal?

Of course it's bad when it happens. So are shark attacks. The point I'm trying to make is the relative unlikelihood of a cyclist being fatally injured from behind during the day as compared to all the other ways a cyclist is likely to be killed.

It's not even clear that riding outside of the rubble, further to the left, makes you more likely to be hit from behind. In fact, since you're more likely to be seen when you're further left, you're probably less likely to be hit, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

Statistics, shmatistics. All I can tell you is that the number of close calls and unpleasant interactions with motorists dropped dramatically for me when I started riding further left and out of the rubble. I'm used to it now, but at first it felt funny and awkward, but as I experienced more and more positive interactions with motorists, I gradually started feeling safer doing it. Gradually, I think it took about a week.... Anyway, now I feel much safer in traffic than I ever did before. And, as a bonus, I get about 5,000 miles between flats.

genec

"Worse than fatal???" What???

The results of overtaking collisions tend to be death, while other collisions don't often lead to death... but the other type of collisions do occur more often. So you don't die; you don't become a statistic of the 700 or so deaths a year. You just end up broken into little pieces and unable to function for years, or life...

Statistics suck... the number of deaths has nothing to do with the potential results of accidents... so don't bother quoting stats... especially considering that many accidents go unreported.

Now the reality is that moving left will probably help... just as I acknowledged:

Helmet Head

Sigh. I hate when this happens.

I originally stated: "the percentage of the approximate 700 U.S. cyclists DEATHS per year that involve cyclists being run over from behind is very small, ..."

Then you said: "are you aware that overtaking collisions (those from behind) tend to be the WORST kind ", apparently ignoring that I was talking ONLY about the WORST kind already - those that lead to DEATH. That's why I said... "Worse than fatal?"

Capiche?


But among those 700 or so deaths, the vast majority are NOT caused by overtaking during the day - they are caused by left hooks, right hooks, head-ons, cyclists swerving, doorings, solo crashes, cyclist riding at night with no lights, etc. etc.

bkrownd

Please somebody lock this thread before it wastes any more brain cell energy.

genec

Capiche.

Yes, your references were all to dead cyclists... I poorly took it out of context to deliver the message that other types of accidents do occur, and while not as bad as death... they can still mess up your life, and some of these do not fall into the statistical mess as they simply are not reported. I was wrong in my references.

However, statictics about dead cyclists don't mean squat to someone that just broke an arm when sideswiped.... or simply got handed a broken bike by some jerk motorist that didn't even stop... never mind that the cyclist walked away with only minor cuts and bruises...

Helmet Head

Gene, your point is akin to saying that being hit by a 1982 Peterbilt cement truck is a worse kind of car-ped collision than a Civic-ped collision, because a 1982 Peterbilt cement truck is more likely to cause a fatal than is a Honda Civic. My point is, well yeah, but how is that relevant? So we should ignore how rare 1982 Peterbilt cement trucks are, ignore the fact that Civics kill far more peds than do the 1982 Peterbilt cement trucks (after all, if you're hit by a Civic you won't necessarily die like if you're hit by a cement truck), and we should focus on reducing collisions with pedestrians involving 1982 Peterbilt cement trucks anyway?

In other words, why bring up the fact that a higher percentage of daytime overtaking collisions (which are very rare) end up in death than of others types of collisions (which are much more common)? The only answer I can imagine is to divert attention from the point I was trying to make.

genec

No, I made a mistake...

My point is 700 deaths are not the only accidents that occur; there are plenty of accidents that do occur that do not end up in death... so the use of those statistics to make your points is simply BS. A house of cards. Numbers tossed about in an attempt to lessen the truth that getting hit by a car does indeed hurt the cyclist more than the motorist.

The reality is that moving further to the left is probably justified, but the OP envisioned that this made him more vulurable to potential collisions... you responded with "well only 700 deaths... and 'overtaking' is lowest on the list... "

So what. You still will not swim in the waters off the coast as you feel that sharks are going to attack at any moment... that is how the OP felt. Go ahead, jump in... think like the OP for just a moment.

Helmet Head

This much is obviously true.


That's a leap that simply does not follow.

The use of those statistics to make that point is not at all BS. The point is that most understand that cycling is relatively safe. In particular, most do not fear being hit from the side or head-on for good reason ... it's very unlikely. What they fear is being hit from the rear. But what I'm pointing out is that they are much safer from being hit from the rear than they are from being hit any other way, which they already do not fear.

In other words, why fear being hit from the rear, but not being hit from elsewhere, when being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you?

genec

That is the fallacy... being hit from elsewhere (which does indeed occur more often) tends to result in other injuries, whereas, as rare as being hit from the rear is, it tends to result in death.

Also one may be able to counter other accidents from other directions with defensive techniques... there is little escape from "being hit from the rear," especially if one doesn't know it is about to happen.

I don't say this to scare off the OP, but simply to suggest that your quote of statistics to prove RE "being hit from the rear" is BS. It doesn't really present the entire picture... like much of the analysis of JF.

Tell the OP to ride more to the left, tell him not to weave in an out, tell him to avoid the leaf piles, but forget the trumped up* stats to prove that he may or may not be one of the "700."

*"trumped up" as they do not represent all types of accidents, nor the frequency of death or injury during said accidents.

tippy

You don't want to ride on the roadway because of the brands of vehicles on your street? Or are you afraid you will get run over by one of these brands?
Your response doesn't clearly address what your concern is.
If the "street" is one where people sweep their leaves to the curb, I'd guess the speed limit through this area would be relatively slow (as compared to a super highway). If you are that concerned with being run over in the roadway (nothing wrong with be concerned about your safety), then I would suggest riding the bus or using the sidewalk. The probability of getting hit by a car in a crosswalk area is higher than if you were acting as a vehicle on the roadway but if you are not able to function as a vehicle on the roadway then you have few choices.
If you are of school age (I have no idea but just going on the mention of "end of summer" and "perhaps for school kids") and are not familar with traffic law (yet), then maybe some of the replies might be a little different. I personally don't recommend anyone (regardless of age) to ride in the roadway unless they are at least aware of the traffic law. School age kids (younger than driver's license age) would obviously have a natural concern with being in the roadway. And some area laws require the younger riders to use the sidewalk. We really don't know you or your circumstance so it's hard to give advice that will fit everyone.
Good Luck.
d.tipton

sbhikes

Back on topic, I sent an email to whatever department it was listing all my bicycle issues and they are actually fixing them. I was so excited today when the light turned green for me! Yay! (I can't run it because I can't see well enough because of a hill to tell if it's safe.)

A crater forming in the bike lane where I ride is also under construction. They've been working on it for a couple of days. It looked like a sink hole was forming. (Shut up HH, I ride in the bike lane, and I won't stop doing so.)

It actually works sometimes to ask for maintenance.

Helmet Head

Gene, do you agree that the following two statements are both true?

1 - If a cyclist is hit, he is more likely to die from the hit if he was hit from behind than if he was hit from elsewhere.

2 - If a cyclist is killed from being hit, it is unlikely that he was hit from behind in daylight, and much more likely that he was hit from elsewhere. In other words, being hit from elsewhere is much more likely to kill you than is being hit from behind in daylight.

It's not a fallacy!


True, but what you can't seem to grasp is the significance of this fact already being accounted for, just as are the all the non-fatal injuries that are more likely to occur when a cyclist is hit from elsewhere than from behind, and a cyclist is still much more likely to be killed from elsewhere than from behind.

Consider this, what's more likely to kill you? Being hit by a 100+ lbs meteor, or a slip in the bath tub?

Even though the fatality rate of being hit by a 100+ lbs meteor is 100%, and the fatality rate of bath tub slips is under 1%, you're still more likely to die from a bath tub slip than from a 100+ lbs meteor hit. Why? Because the incidence rate of 100+ lbs meteor hits is so low compared to the incidence rate of bath tub slips. The fact that "there is little escape from 'being hit by a meteor'" is just a factor that's factored into the reality that you are extremely unlikely to die from behing hit by a meteor, just as a cyclist is extremely unlikely to die from being hit from behind in good lighting conditions.

Feeling unsafe about being hit from the rear while feeling safe about being hit from elsewhere makes about as much sense as feeling unsafe about being hit by a meteor while feeling safe about slipping in the bath tub.

Helmet Head

Indeed. The city of san diego streets division is in my cell phone's address book under, "potholes".


Jeez, Diane, get up on the wrong side of the bed? I ride in bike lanes too...

sbhikes

**GASP**
I'm looking, but I don't see the 4 horseman, then sun is still a small yellow ball, and the world still seems to be spinning.

Yeah, I knew that, but I figured you'd jump on me for calling in about the bike lane rather than riding outside it, which is something I am not going to do.

Helmet Head

Just so you know, I would ride around it, but I would call it in as well.

Hey Gene, what about my questions in post #20?

slagjumper

Leaves are a problem on the street where I live. There are 20 Sicamores and they have many very thick leathery leaves. I started composting them and now have the best soil around.

When the city comes around to suck up the rest of the leaves, everyone moves their car to help facilitate the production. Funny thing is that our street has so many leaves but is does not have regular street cleaning. A friend has no leaves on his street and much less traffic, but the city is out there cleaning his every week. The leaves do impinge a good bit onto the road and can be very slippery when wet-- are there any statistics on wet leaves and cycling fatalities? I've heard that Jello and Bannana slugs can be a real problem in the NW.

genec

If a cyclist is hit from behind, what defense could they have used?

If a cyclist is hit from elsewhere, as you have so often pointed out, they probably could have avoided it.

I can make my bathtub slip proof... I can't dodge a meteor...

But here you are equating the nearly impossible with the common occurance and comparing that to cycling... interesting metaphor... unfortunatly folks are hit from behind, even in broad daylight, and since your stats cannot determine if the cyclist was too far to the right or not far enough to the left or 3 inches past the optimal point of destination positioning, then the stats have little to do with reality.

So essentially you state: "there are only 700 cyclist deaths in America, and few by being hit from behind, so it is OK to move over."

I state: "your numbers are meaningless, but stick to your message, but don't quote jibberish."