Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-13-14, 10:18 AM   #51
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
I can't help but wonder if people driving cars consider themselves "motorists."
How about driver?
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 10:28 AM   #52
LucF
Senior Member
 
LucF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Montreal, Canada
Bikes: Cervélo R3, Trek Wahoo
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FWIW, looks like the conclusions in this Canadian report on cycling fatalities contradict the OP's report:
There are two important factors in cycling fatalities which currently get insufficient attention - cyclist behaviour and night lighting equipment. The vast majority of cycling accidents involve cyclist error or inappropriate practices.
LucF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 10:39 AM   #53
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
I'm very grateful that you have the courage to address the inconsistencies of a critique without addressing the subject of the critique.
I and others address what we choose to address, not what you decide should be discussed. In this case, I chose to discuss/respond to a previous poster about the various definitions of overtaking in relation to bicycling accidents. Too darn bad that you expect me to respond to your telepathic requests for opinions on subjects of interest to you.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 10:45 AM   #54
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
How about driver?
There were a few posters on A&S in the past who empasized that they considered themselves and others who rode like them as bicycle drivers, because they operated their bicycles IAW motor vehicle rules and requirements.
One poster was killed in a traffic accident, cause was never made clear as best as I could tell. Another otherwise well spoken poster no longer posts here, others may be in the woodwork somewhere.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:06 AM   #55
phoebeisis
New Orleans
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 2,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
No doubt others have suggested that LC VC Taking the lane
Has absolutely ZERO protective effect against "distracted drivers"

Cyclist need protected routes more than ever. Of the 628 cycling-related fatalities studied, most were caused by careless or inattentive drivers—something dedicated cycling lanes would help alleviate.

The above cut from the article makes it clear-cyclists are at risk from distracted(TEXTING) drivers.

TAKING THE LANE- won't protect you from distracted drivers.
It will increase your risk because cars -guided and not so guided-spend the most time cutting out a swath more or less in the middle of the lane.

They spend MUCH less time far RIGHT.
LCing might earn you fewer "close shaves" from alert but jerky drivers
But close shaves don't hurt you.
Probability favors FRAP when you factor in distracted drivers.
LCing assumes drivers are alert attentive - most are
BUT the ones that HIT YOU- AREN'T!
This article should put paid to LANE CONTROLLING-
It won't of course because LCers will claim--that since the started LCing "They have fewer close shaves"
They probably are being truthful-but they are missing the point.
LCers have ZERO evidence that it makes them safer.
This study certainly indicates that plopped in the middle of the lane-isn't the lowest risk positioning.
phoebeisis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:15 AM   #56
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebeisis View Post
...
Cyclist need protected routes more than ever. Of the 628 cycling-related fatalities studied, most were caused by careless or inattentive drivers—something dedicated cycling lanes would help alleviate.
...
Can you site a source for the bolded claim?
MMACH 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:22 AM   #57
Leisesturm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
I am not advocating this as policy, I'm just putting out there what has worked for me. As it happens, this week my wife is writing an op ed for our tandem club newsletter on what she has "seen", heard and learned over the last eight years of riding with me on our two tandems. She is blind and her perspective is desired by the rest of the club (50 teams) because none of them could ever consider riding a bicycle on the road at any other time than early Saturday or Sunday morning and then only in a group and only with the constant vigilance of the point teams and rear guard teams calling "car back!" or "car up!" whenever danger looms.

When my now wife and I met I had been bike commuting from Brooklyn, NY to NY, NY five days a week. 14 miles of very urban cycling on a constant basis. I've never hit or been hit by a car neither before riding as the captain of a tandem team or solo as a commuter. If a texting driver were to blow a stop sign or fail to yield they might nail an entitled VC'er but not me because I ride like a bicycle, NOT a motorcycle. It works for me. We moved to Portland two years after meeting, and for all but two months of the last six years in Oregon have been spent in the Hillsboro suburb of Portland. Now we are in what is called close-in South-East, and on a daily basis as I captain DW to her office 2 miles away and ride back light, I see countless thousands of other cyclists riding much like I do: in the door zone, to the right of the traffic stream, but ready to control the vehicle lane when and if necessary for short periods.

Some of you need a slap up the side of the head and round-trip airfare to Portland, OR so you can see first-hand the benefits of a non-confrontational approach to vehicular cycling. FWIW.

H
Leisesturm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:23 AM   #58
buzzman
----
Thread Starter
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
Can you site a source for the bolded claim?
Other than the fact that it was a statement included in the page linked in the OP...

Quote:
In the 628 fatalities, police reportedly cited motorists 285 times. But authorities took legal action in only 135 of the cases resulting in just 77 sentences.
Source: League of American Bicyclists "Every Bicyclist Counts"
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:25 AM   #59
meanwhile
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Why is it controversial? Fatalities are more likely from collisions with high speed vehicles. We have greater exposure to high speed vehicles from behind than from in front or from the sides. Therefore more fatalities can be expected from collisions from the rear. It's no surprise.
That a "study" confirms your prejudices is never a good reason for believing it is correct.

Last edited by meanwhile; 08-13-14 at 11:29 AM.
meanwhile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:28 AM   #60
meanwhile
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
When my now wife and I met I had been bike commuting from Brooklyn, NY to NY, NY five days a week. 14 miles of very urban cycling on a constant basis. I've never hit or been hit by a car neither before riding as the captain of a tandem team or solo as a commuter.
Yes: and I've never been in an aircrash or adducted by aliens - aren't we both remarkable???

Quote:
If a texting driver were to blow a stop sign or fail to yield they might nail an entitled VC'er but not me because I ride like a bicycle, NOT a motorcycle.
So your theory is a texting driver will drive perfectly except for not seeing cyclists? He won't ever veer to the edges of the road? Ok...
meanwhile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:29 AM   #61
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
There were a few posters on A&S in the past who empasized that they considered themselves and others who rode like them as bicycle drivers, because they operated their bicycles IAW motor vehicle rules and requirements.
One poster was killed in a traffic accident, cause was never made clear as best as I could tell. Another otherwise well spoken poster no longer posts here, others may be in the woodwork somewhere.
We always *notice* it when ideologues die via their ideologies but it's not really an informative event.

I think most cagers think of themselves as "drivers" and when they are not driving as passengers. Because operating a motorized couch is the default mode in USAnia, the label "driver" does not contain the negative "self-identity" connotations of "cyclist". As cycling inevitably becomes more common, I expect "cyclist" will also lose some of the negative baggage (subcultural and social-political) associated with the term.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:38 AM   #62
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I see countless thousands of other cyclists riding much like I do: in the door zone, to the right of the traffic stream, but ready to control the vehicle lane when and if necessary for short periods.
I don't know when and where you ride but I almost never see people riding in the door zone on Belmont, Hawthorne, of Madison. I also don't think riding in the door zone is a sign of progress from a "VC" or "segregation" perspectiv.

Last edited by spare_wheel; 08-13-14 at 11:55 AM.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:41 AM   #63
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
Other than the fact that it was a statement included in the page linked in the OP...
A dubious claim made in the OP. I haven't found anything in the LAB report that backs up the claim "Of the 628 cycling-related fatalities studied, most were caused by careless or inattentive drivers..."
MMACH 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:43 AM   #64
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 9,848
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
That a "study" confirms your prejudices is never a good reason for believing it is correct.
Why do you assume prejudice? I didn't cite any sources, but what I wrote there came primarily from FARS data, and a few other objective sources. I'm surprised that anyone would consider it suspect.

There were several posters in this thread who appear to dispute that from the rear collisions result in the most fatalities. Perhaps you are another, since you refer to that statement as "prejudice" and imply confirmation bias. Do you have any data at all that disputes it?
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:44 AM   #65
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
In this case, I chose to discuss/respond to a previous poster about the various definitions of overtaking in relation to bicycling accidents.
And I chose to highlight the irony of criticizing a critique without in any way addressing the flaws in the original study.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 11:53 AM   #66
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Why do you assume prejudice? I didn't cite any sources, but what I wrote there came primarily from FARS data, and a few other objective sources. I'm surprised that anyone would consider it suspect.

There were several posters in this thread who appear to dispute that from the rear collisions result in the most fatalities. Perhaps you are another, since you refer to that statement as "prejudice" and imply confirmation bias. Do you have any data at all that disputes it?
Is it really hard to accept the possibility that roads with high speeds and fewer intersections have more overtaking hits or that roads with slower speed and/or more intersecation have fewer overtaking hits?

IMO, this is only a "debate" for VCers and "copenhamsterdamistas". For non-zealots it's a bit of a "duh".
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 12:02 PM   #67
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 9,848
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
Is it really hard to accept the possibility that roads with high speeds and fewer intersections have more overtaking hits or that roads with slower speed and/or more intersecation have fewer overtaking hits?

IMO, this is only a "debate" for VCers and "copenhamsterdamistas". For non-zealots it's a bit of a "duh".
It should be considered established fact, rather than merely possibilities.

We can't really expect bike lanes on long rural roads, and we also can't really be safe with vehicular cycling if sight lines are shorter than stopping distance. If that's truly what the controversy is about, then it's difficult to see how there could be a resolution when both sides advocate the impossible.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 12:04 PM   #68
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
...
There were several posters in this thread who appear to dispute that from the rear collisions result in the most fatalities. Perhaps you are another, since you refer to that statement as "prejudice" and imply confirmation bias. Do you have any data at all that disputes it?
I don't dispute that a collision from the rear is worse than from the side. I dispute it being interpreted that same-way collisions are our biggest concern.

Same way collisions are the rarest type of bicycle/auto collision. They are deadly but rare.

Null66 made a comparison with airplane and automobile crashes. Airplane crashes are far more deadly, but are so rare that airline travel is safer than auto travel.
MMACH 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 12:46 PM   #69
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 9,848
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
I don't dispute that a collision from the rear is worse than from the side. I dispute it being interpreted that same-way collisions are our biggest concern.

Same way collisions are the rarest type of bicycle/auto collision. They are deadly but rare.

Null66 made a comparison with airplane and automobile crashes. Airplane crashes are far more deadly, but are so rare that airline travel is safer than auto travel.
Rare enough that I'm not concerned at all about them, other than riding with a mirror to improve my odds.

The tunnel vision on fatalities (let alone type of fatality) is already a red herring. There are 50,000 injuries and 700 fatalities in round numbers. Addressing the overtaking portion of fatalities (180 to 280 depending on who you believe) to the exclusion of the 50,000 injuries doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 12:46 PM   #70
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
I think most cagers think of themselves as "drivers" and when they are not driving as passengers. Because operating a motorized couch is the default mode in USAnia, the label "driver" does not contain the negative "self-identity" connotations of "cyclist". As cycling inevitably becomes more common, I expect "cyclist" will also lose some of the negative baggage (subcultural and social-political) associated with the term.
It is unlikely that many drivers/motorist consider themselves "cagers," or that they operate a "motorized couch", or that they live in "USAnia." Nor that they would likely be impressed with such colorful descriptions.

But there are always a few jokers in the deck reducing whatever credibility they might have by repeatedly using such smarmy/belittling references.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 02:00 PM   #71
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
It should be considered established fact, rather than merely possibilities.
I was being very generous.

Quote:
We can't really expect bike lanes on long rural roads, and we also can't really be safe with vehicular cycling if sight lines are shorter than stopping distance.
I've always believed that bike advocates would get more traction if there was support for a range of approaches/options instead of the *one ideal solution*.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 02:36 PM   #72
phoebeisis
New Orleans
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 2,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
Can you site a source for the bolded claim?
MMACH5
No.
I glanced at the "article" again. It isn't an article-just a few paragraphs-pie chart -couple of tables.
It wasn't clear HOW/WHERE the writer got the numbers-628 deaths.
And considering their own "facts" cut below

In the 628 fatalities, police reportedly cited motorists 285 times. But authorities took legal action in only 135 of the cases resulting in just 77 sentences.

How 285/628(45%) or 135/628(21%) becomes MOST ???
It doesn't make any sense to call 45% or 21% "most"

Now the OP point- 40% rear enders- yeah rear end collision-certainly indicates inattention.
And that was what I was "using" to cheap shot Lane Controlling.
I can never resist a cheap shot at LCing.

Now I would buy that many many-majority maybe-of bike car deaths are caused by inattention-but those numbers don't suggest the cops or juries bought it
AND safe bet the drivers sure as hell didn't say " I was TEXTING"

Now I did like the bike lanes I rode on in Flagstaff AZ-but the drivers there were sooooo polite it might not matter.
I rarely ride our NOLA bike lanes-don't live in the city
phoebeisis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 02:38 PM   #73
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,712
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post

IMO, this is only a "debate" for VCers and "copenhamsterdamistas". For non-zealots it's a bit of a "duh".
LOL, very well put.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-14, 04:58 PM   #74
achoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Null66 View Post
Both of you need external validation of who you yourselves think you are, pretty serious issues.

What matters in an identity is not someone else's understanding but each person understanding of themselves.

Many, perhaps most people who ride bikes don't think of themselves as "cyclists", even though they ride bikes. Call them that and you'll likely get an ear full of what they think "cyclists" are like. Down here, it involves a rather negative view of lycra, leg shaving, racing, performance enhancers, a particular attitude, and a big dose of "you're not from around here, are you?".... But they still ride bikes... And they do make up a disproportionate number of fatalities.

...
Wow. Talk about elitism and needing "external validation".

I guess when you find yourself in a logical fallacy hole, you don't stop digging. Oh no, not that. You reach for the pneumatic drills, drill some holes, fill the holes with dynamite, and try to blast your way to China.
achoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-14, 05:34 AM   #75
meanwhile
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Why do you assume prejudice?
I didn't: you said that you were prejudiced - you had expectations and the claimed result matched them, hence "no surprise." Prejudice means pre-judging - that's where the word comes from. Intelligent people don't judge studies this way but on their methodology - which in this case is poor.
meanwhile is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 AM.