Advocacy & Safety - My Town Cleaned the Streets Today

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.

Any thoughts on how to deal with this future problem? I mean, apart from not riding through the leaves.
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.

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.

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.

You are gonna get along here just fine :D
Doug

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. :D

...The first day after summer ends they got around to cleaning the streets...
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

What's wrong with riding on the road that is constantly being swept clean by traffic?
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.
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?

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?

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.

are you aware that overtaking collisions (those from behind) tend to be the worst kind
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.

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.


"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:


This is not to imply that one shouldn't ride in the lane or move further left...

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



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.
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.

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

Capiche?


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...

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.

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.


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.

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...
This much is obviously true.



so the use of those statistics to make your points is simply BS.
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?

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?

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.

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.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. 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

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.

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?
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.
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!



there is little escape from "being hit from the rear," especially if one doesn't know it is about to happen.
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.

It actually works sometimes to ask for maintenance.
Indeed. The city of san diego streets division is in my cell phone's address book under, "potholes".



(Shut up HH, I ride in the bike lane, and I won't stop doing so.)
Jeez, Diane, get up on the wrong side of the bed? I ride in bike lanes too...

I ride in bike lanes too...
**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.

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?

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.

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!



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.




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.

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."

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

So are shark attacks.




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

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.

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.


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.

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.



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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

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.


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.

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. ;)

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??? ;)

OK I am willing to admit I am not familiar with this term... What the heck? I believe he is invoking Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):



Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely-recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.

...based on knowing how many accidents occur... you don't have that data.
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.

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

I believe he is invoking Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law):

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

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?

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

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.

OK, thread closed.

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

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?No:


Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Keep on keepin' on, fellas!

NoI 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. ;)

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...
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").

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. ;)

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... :D Or what is missing in the data... :rolleyes:

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.