I had a typical conversation yesterday, this time with my dentist,
during a checkup. We were talking about how busy our lives were,
stress, etc., and I noted that my chance to get relief from all that
comes from riding my bike to work. As it turns out, our commutes are
reverse of each other (he works near where I live, but lives a 15
minute ride from where I work).
He said that he couldn't ride to work because he "would be killed" by
the time he got to the office. Thinking that he meant "killed" by the
physical effort required to ride from his home to his work, I assured
him that it wasn't that far, and he could quite easily get in the
shape necessary to make it. He quickly corrected my wrong assumption
- "oh no, it's those women in their suvs chatting on their cellphones
not paying attention to the road that would kill me".
Of course, it has nothing to do with suvs or cellphones, because I'm
sure he felt similarly in the 80s before either became popular. The
culprit this time, AGAIN, is the notion that it is inherently
dangerous to ride a bicycle in motor traffic. It is an insidious
notion, and it has permeated the thinking of the vast majority of our
society.
Taking a random sample of our population, what percentage do you think
would agree with the assertion that riding a bicycle in traffic can be
a reasonably safe activity? My dentist is no dummy. But in his mind
the difference between him and me is that I'm willing to take
unreasonable risks "with those nuts out there", and he's not. It
wouldn't occur to him that there is more to riding a bike safely in
traffic than what he learned about riding bikes as a kid. "Stay out
of the way of cars" is the primary principle, obviously. What else is
there to know?
Because The Notion is so thorougly permeated in our society, I think
the only way to tackle it is one bit at a time. Education, of course,
is the answer, but education is useless for those who have no idea
that education, knowledge and behavior is what determines the safety
of a cyclist in traffic, far more than any other factor. To them,
taking a class or reading a book on the topic of safe traffic cycling
makes about as much sense as taking a class or reading a book on
cooking with cyanide.
One of the "bits" that I believe is fairly significant in reinforcing
The Notion, and needs to be tackled, is the existence of bike lanes.
Every foot of bike lane proclaims that cyclists, if they are to be on
the road at all, should be segregated from same-direction motor
traffic. Every bike lane emblem and sign reinforces The Notion that
cyclists are fundamentally different from other traffic, and should be
treated accordingly (because if they're not, they'll be killed).
I don't even begin to imagine that removing bike lanes, or at least
getting cycling advocates to understand why we should be promoting
their removal, rather than their installation, would solve the
problem. But I do believe it is an important sociological first step
to take, before we can begin to hope to tackle the countless other
smaller bits that stand in the way of getting folks to understand that
cycling in traffic can be reasonably safe, and it is the cyclist's own
behavior that is the primary factor in determining how safe.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
1) Taking a random sample of our population, what percentage do you think
would agree with the assertion that riding a bicycle in traffic can be
a reasonably safe activity? .....
2) I think the only way to tackle it is one bit at a time. Education, of course,
is the answer, but education is useless for those who have no idea
that education, knowledge and behavior is what determines the safety
of a cyclist in traffic, far more than any other factor. To them,
taking a class or reading a book on the topic of safe traffic cycling
makes about as much sense as taking a class or reading a book on
cooking with cyanide.
1) I'd say less than 10%.
2) +1 on the education. Bike Ed classes produce outstanding results, most difficult as you say is to get people to attend them, and I am only talking about people who would be interested in learning.
Marketing a Bike Ed program is very challenging, the best infuencer is someone who has already done the class and motivates friends and relatives, best of best is someone who started commuting to work after taking the class and can influence workmates, so it's important to maintain follow-up communication with graduates. ;)
genec
Perspective is also an issue... the dentist is seeing the road through his "driver's eyes" and he cannot imagine that there is room on the road for him and his bike, as to him as a driver, the road is full. He probably also has seen a number of near misses by the very "problems" he touts.
As a cyclist you look not only at the motorists, but you also see the spaces on the road that could easily handle a cyclist, you look for the cycling places, you watch the road in a different way.
This is quite similar to when I see the wind as I sail... I look for the right way to move the boat with the wind and waves with the eyes of a sailor. Put a non-sailor on the boat and they probably wouldn't know what to look for to even get the boat moving.
So to answer your question, to get a non-commuter to act and think like a commuter... they need to get out and ride enough so that first they are not thinking about the bike per se... the bike is simply an extension of the rider. Then they need to progress from less "scary" situations to those that are more "scary," just as they did as a driver... moving from parking lots to quiet streets to finally the full freeway at rush hour.
The eyes and senses have to be tuned to the environment... just pushing him off the pier and hoping he will swim does not prepare him for a full on swim meet.
JMHO.
Treespeed
I think one thing you don't consider when people tell you that the reason they don't cycle is fear is simple choice. It's not that they are really scared, driving is just easier and more convenient. It's more than just reading a book, or taking a class to bicycle commute, it's wanting to bicycle commute. I believe even if some folks had a separated bicycle freeway between their destinations they would still choose to drive. I believe you are mistaking fear sometimes for a polite way of saying, "I'd rather not." And choosing not to do something is distinctly different from being afraid to do it. Some of us who have been commuting for ages forget how much of our lives we sculpt around our commuting, clothing choices, allotment of time and resources. I understand that to you this is just another nail in the bike lanes coffin, but I don't believe the two are at all related. Chances are if there was a bike lane your dentist would be apt to use it and ride in.
FXjohn
I'd bet you'd be surprised how many really wealthy people woudn't fight traffic on a bicycle.
Helmet Head
Perspective is also an issue... the dentist is seeing the road through his "driver's eyes" and he cannot imagine that there is room on the road for him and his bike, as to him as a driver, the road is full. He probably also has seen a number of near misses by the very "problems" he touts.
As a cyclist you look not only at the motorists, but you also see the spaces on the road that could easily handle a cyclist, you look for the cycling places, you watch the road in a different way.
You crack me up. What you're saying, if understand you correctly, is that both the motorist and the cyclist are looking for "cycling places", but the motorist doesn't see them because he doesn't know how to look, whereas the cyclist has, if you will, developed an eye for finding these spaces.
If so, then the motorist and the cyclist are making the same mistake. They're assuming a cyclist cannot use space used by others; that the cyclist's use of space cannot affect the use of space by others.
This is fundamental. It's why so many people like bike lanes - i.e., dedicated cycling space.
Like with door zones, there are two primary paradigms used with respect to cycling space.
The space cyclists primarily use is whatever space motor traffic is not using. (The video of the NY messenger race comes to mind as an example of expert application of this paradigm).
Cyclists create whatever space they need to ride in traffic by negotiating with others.
Marcus, I agree that "danger" might be used as an excuse to mask laziness or lack of desire, but I do believe that the vast majority of our society does believe that cycling in traffic is unreasonable risk.
genec
I think one thing you don't consider when people tell you that the reason they don't cycle is fear is simple choice. It's not that they are really scared, driving is just easier and more convenient. It's more than just reading a book, or taking a class to bicycle commute, it's wanting to bicycle commute. I believe even if some folks had a separated bicycle freeway between their destinations they would still choose to drive. I believe you are mistaking fear sometimes for a polite way of saying, "I'd rather not." And choosing not to do something is distinctly different from being afraid to do it. Some of us who have been commuting for ages forget how much of our lives we sculpt around our commuting, clothing choices, allotment of time and resources. I understand that to you this is just another nail in the bike lanes coffin, but I don't believe the two are at all related. Chances are if there was a bike lane your dentist would be apt to use it and ride in.
I doubt bike lanes have anything to do with it... I think you hit it on the head with the time and effort issue...
A typical motorist just does not want to expend any more effort than it takes to push down a gas pedal... and sometimes even that seems to be too much effort for some... based on the whining that some motorists do when they have to slow down for cyclists... while those motorists are sitting in the cushy leather seats.
FXjohn
What's wrong with driving home, and then bicycling somewhere safer and more scenic?
galen_52657
Treespeed has a good point. People often don't tell the 'whole truth' and instead use what they consider to be a rationale that will be better-received by the listener. Not to may folks will offer up 'I am too dang lazy to ride stinking bike for 20 minutes to get to work when I can jump in my car and listen to the radio and drink my coffee'.
To me, the only thing that will kick-start cycle-commuting is another gas shortage. Economics trump everything. If folks have to wait 40 minutes in line to get gas again, every kind of rolling contraption you can imagine will be wondering up and down the road.
genec
You crack me up. What you're saying, if understand you correctly, is that both the motorist and the cyclist are looking for "cycling places", but the motorist doesn't seem them because he doesn't know how to look, whereas the cyclist has, if you will, developed an eye for finding these spaces.
If so, then the motorist and the cyclist are making the same mistake. They're assuming a cyclist cannot use space used by others; that the cyclist's use of space cannot affect the use of space by others.
This is fundamental. It's why so many people like bike lanes - i.e., dedicated cycling space.
Like with door zones, there are two primary paradigms used with respect to cycling space.
The space cyclists primarily use is whatever space motor traffic is not using. (The video of the NY messenger race comes to mind as an example of expert application of this paradigm).
Cyclists create whatever space they need to ride in traffic by negotiating with others.
Marcus, I agree that "danger" might be used as an excuse to mask laziness or lack of desire, but I do believe that the vast majority of our society does believe that cycling in traffic is unreasonable risk.
Nope, you read it all wrong.
Go back and look at my metaphor of sailing... one develops an "eye" for doing something. Since your dentist doesn't have a cycling eye, from his perspective, the road is crowded and dangerous. This has nothing to do with making actual space or the rights to the road, it has to do with how one perceives what is in front of them.
You perceived that I was talking about physical space... you did not read what I wrote with an open mind or open eyes. You read it as a bike lane hater believing I was writing about BL. Very wrong.
Go back and try it again.
Off to ride now... later.
Helmet Head
What's wrong with driving home, and then bicycling somewhere safer and more scenic?
Takes more time (time spent commuting by bike is offset by time not spent commuting by car; time spent riding after you get home is all extra time).
Many parts of this particular commute are quite scenic, even spectacular (albeit one section is pretty bad too, but those are hard to avoid on any kind of ride).
Riding on roads is riding on roads. Once you know how to manage traffic, the safety is about the same.
Helmet Head
You read it as a bike lane hater believing I was writing about BL.
I didn't think you were writing about bike lanes at all. Just because I mentioned that the paradigm I believed you were using also explained why so many people like bike lanes, you jumped to the conclusion that I thought you were writing about BLs???
Go back and look at my metaphor of sailing... one develops an "eye" for doing something.
Uh, that's what I meant when I said, whereas the cyclist has, if you will, developed an eye for finding these spaces.
You perceived that I was talking about physical space..
Well of course, what space were you talking about when you wrote but you also see the spaces on the road that could easily handle a cyclist, you look for the cycling places, if not physical space?
galen_52657
I'd bet you'd be surprised how many really wealthy people woudn't fight traffic on a bicycle.
I had a funny ride yesterday. It was a nice day and I was chomping at the bit to go for a ride. When I got home and suited up, I could not find my Co2 inflator. So, I decided to ride the 5 miles to the shop and get another inflator. The bike shop is located in a shopping center on a 4 lane busy road and I was riding at rush hour. The road surface is typical crap and the right-hand lane width varies from 10 to 12 feet wide with curb. I had a slight tail wind, so I was moving pretty good. It was fun dancing with the cars! I did not have a single incident with a motorist the whole way and was out in the lane a good 3 feet.
It was only once I was out in the country on a deserted road that some moron harassed me.
phoebeisis
Are you dead sure he is wrong?Are there any figures on deaths per mile ridden for adult riders?
I would guess that bike commuting is much more dangerous than car commuting-maybe 10-100 times more likely to be killed per mile traveled.
About 40,000 folks die per year in car wrecks.I would guess we commute maybe 20,000 miles/yr-say 100 million of us- 2,000,000,000,000/40000= 50,000,000 miles per death-
for bike commuters-maybe 1000,000 serious ones-commute maybe 3000 miles per year-300,000,000 miles-now how many get killed-100-500??-If it is just 100-then 3,000,000 miles per death-15 times the car rate.
Of course these are just guesses,but no one can seriously argue that biking to work is safer than driving to work(even if you attempt to factor in the arguable health benefits)
You are unlikely to be killed commuting to work on a bike,but you are much less likely if you drive to work.
Are there any gov. figures out there??Thanks.Charlie
PS I like bike lanes.We don't have them here-New Orleans,but Flagstaff ,Az has them and the riding is much safer-easier(yes,the attitude of the drivers is much different)
galen_52657
My my personal impression is that cycling is generally safer than motoring. Mostly because motoring entails much higher speeds and thus the crashes are much more horrific.
I found this site but can't vouch for the accuracy.
Actually it's the reverse. Regular bike riders and especially team riders have much lower problems. Most deaths are those under 16 who don't know what they are doing. Second group is those who know what they are doing, but still ignore safety, i.e. riding at twilight without light. Third group is those who handle intersections poorly. The rest of cycling deaths are miniscule in comparison.
I understand the point that BikeLanes tells drivers that cyclists don't belong on the road. But you ignored one significant variant: compare two 2-lane roads, one with a bike lane and one without.
What's the difference, the bike lane one is wider. Thus there is more room for error recovery, regardless of driver error or cyclist error. The paint strip means nothing. The cycling icon works very well as a reminder to drivers, oh, don't forget there are bikes on this route. Parking spaces don't mean vehicles can only park. Bike lanes don't mean cyclists are only in bike lanes.
Now, back up some more. I'd bet the dentist is giving you an acceptable excuse. I'd wager the real problem lies in more common perceptions:
1. it's is going to hurt to be pedaling a bike, i.e I'm out of shape and I don't want to admit it.
2. I'll look unprofessional. Where are the yuppy bikes and yuppy bike commuter professionals as a role model?
3. it's going to take too much time.
Deal with those 3 real objections, and the false face saving objection of safety will go away.
Cycliste
Hang on, don't dentists have one of the highest rate of suicide? Maybe cycling to their cabinet, despite the risks envolved, could curb this number.? :)
galen_52657
Hang on, don't dentists have one of the highest rate of suicide? Maybe cycling to their cabinet, despite the risks envolved, could curb this number.? :)
If you had to deal with rotting smoker's teeth, gum disease and bad breath all friggin day... suicide might seem like relief...
Cycliste
If you had to deal with rotting smoker's teeth, gum disease and bad breath all friggin day... suicide might seem like relief...
Oh I am not denying the reason why, I was suggesting that cycling may help as some form of therapy :)
(actually, I read several times that this is a myth)
-=Łem in Pa=-
Lets say you could get the typical remote control, drive-thru,
climate controlled, couch pilot to get on a bicycle, your dentist
is a great example of what we face....its impromptu randomness
makes it a perfect typical motorist view of cycling.....
I am not scared to dice it up with city traffic but there is a sort of
cycling pergatory that makes me uncomfortable and always will. It
is the 35 mph, main artery type. IT goes without saying everyone
is going 50-55mph. There are no shoulders to speak of and on Friday
afternoon most people wouldnt even care if they hit you on the way
to the bar or Mall. I think one of the reasons people dont want to mix
it up with traffic is because subliminally they think to themselves " I wouldnt
want to be on a bike with me following me the way I am driving right now"
It might be easier to convince people to vacation in Iraq.
.....::::::REAL 'DONT RIDE ON SIDEWALK' STORY:::::::...........
I was riding home from work tonite and stopped/natty fab track balancing
on my fixie behind a truck at a "T" intersection....Sidestreet meeting busy
Rt. 4. Im concentrating more on trying not to dab but I see little girl on a
big WaLGoose MTB type bike go off the sidewalk, cross the street and up
on the other sidewalk and as she cleared the cutout her pedal caught
something poking out of the ground next to some signage. Down she went !!
OUCH !! So I do stop and ask her if she is OK and she says 'yes'. She just
sort of looked at me after that and again I asked "are you sure ?"...she said
'yes', shook her head very convincingly and jumped on her bike and rode off......
Up the sidewalk :eek: If it was an older person I think I might have gone VC
on them Ghandi style but there was no way I was going to tell a little kid who
might have trouble riding smoothly to ride in busy Rt. 4.
webist
Your dentist actually rides 150 miles per week. Your dentist also reads this fourm and knows how easy it is to get you going. :D
geog_dash
I think the only useful statistics for comparing modes of transportation are fatalities per mile and serious injuries per mile. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't been able to find these numbers for bicycles. This doesn't surprise me, since most bikes don't have odometers. Furthermore, manufacturers and insurance companies don't have much financial incentive to obtain such information.
I-Like-To-Bike
Actually it's the reverse. Regular bike riders and especially team riders have much lower problems.
Source about the low number of problems for "Regular" and "Team" cyclists? How were their "problems" measured and who defined these groups of mystery cyclists? Credible sources preferably.
genec
I didn't think you were writing about bike lanes at all. Just because I mentioned that the paradigm I believed you were using also explained why so many people like bike lanes, you jumped to the conclusion that I thought you were writing about BLs???
Uh, that's what I meant when I said, whereas the cyclist has, if you will, developed an eye for finding these spaces.
OK, sort of what I am saying. But I am not really talking about physical space as much as the feeling and comfort one also develops. That is why I also stated that even a motorist has to go through a training stage to feel comfortable with their vehicle handling skills.
Well of course, what space were you talking about when you wrote but you also see the spaces on the road that could easily handle a cyclist, you look for the cycling places, if not physical space?
I was only touching on the concept of space, I was focusing on develping the skills to see the road in a different way than as just a motorist. This is why I also talked about skilled sailors "seeing the wind."
It is about perspective... how one views the road, themselves, and the whole system. With training and experience, one's "vision" changes.
But bottom line I believe that more than anything, Treespeed really touched on it... it is just too darn easy to sit in a leather seat and push a gas pedal...
Oh BTW you started the whole BL thing in your opening post... I never mentioned and it did not play one bit in my thinking. I think you have some odd Notion of what BL are all about.
Helmet Head
Oh BTW you started the whole BL thing in your opening post... I never mentioned and it did not play one bit in my thinking
You did mention BLs in #10 when you wrote, inexplicably, "You read it as a bike lane hater believing I was writing about BL. "
PaulH
Does he even have a bike? Does he (or did he) find cycling enjoyable? Is the level of traffic congestion and availability of parking spaces such that driving his route is easier and more convenient than cycling? Is he able and willing to get regular exercise without commuting?
Paul
genec
You did mention BLs in #10 when you wrote, inexplicably, "You read it as a bike lane hater believing I was writing about BL. "
Yes, in response to you mentioning it in first place.
bbonnn
I personally don't feel particularly vulnerable in traffic. I am sometimes intimidated by cars whizzing past me too closely, and I suppose if I did take a fall, I might get crushed in the right circumstances. But overall, as long as I concentrate on riding predictably/consistently and being aware of conditions around me, I feel pretty safe.
Yet I would be terrified to ride a motorcycle. And I think people who ride motorcycles are taking a tremendous risk. Is there a disconnect?
To my mind, it's mostly the speed factor -- having an accident at 35-65mph on a motorcycle is different than having one below 30mph on a bicycle (and with me, it would be more like below 15mph).
But the commonality between biking and motorcycling is that there is no cage to protect you. Your body is out there. No airbags, no steel, no seat belt, no bumpers. If you get thrown, you're gonna hurt. So, I can kind of put myself in the shoes of people who fear biking, and fear for their flesh and bones being so vulnerable in a world of speeding automobiles.
And of course in driver's ed, we're shown the grisly films of what happens when you don't wear a seat belt. And that's IN the car. Imagine the horror if you don't even HAVE the car body to protect your porkchops. (I'm not saying that's my view, but it's one I could imagine a non-biker having)
How to overcome that? I think it's just one of those things in life which, if you spend all your time perseverating on the potentials for tragedy (as with driving, or shaving, or swimming, or cooking, etc) you'd never leave the house. But you'll never get over it if you don't give it a whirl.
Bekologist
The harsh reality you fail to aknowledge, Helmet Head, is that bicycle facilities encourage greater ridership. Maybe not for your dentist (did you drive to your appointment?) but for bicycle riders in general. Regardless of your perceived flaws in intent or design.
well designed, integrated multimodal facilities, non autocentric facilities like mass transit and bike accomodations, will be a more effective tool to get people out of their cars than any pipe dreams and nonaccomodations via your twisted vision of vehicular parity for bicyclists. Which, if I've done the math correctly, I believe you foment while driving your car around San Diego far more often than you actually ride a bicycle.
Cycliste
Source about the low number of problems for "Regular" and "Team" cyclists? How were their "problems" measured and who defined these groups of mystery cyclists? Credible sources preferably.
HiYoSilver, if you don't mind I'd like to point your requester to the following study: Bicyclist Injuries: Learning from the Statistics (http://massbike.org/resources/stats.htm) in support to your comments.
I-Like-To-Bike
HiYoSilver, if you don't mind I'd like to point your requester to the following study: Bicyclist Injuries: Learning from the Statistics (http://massbike.org/resources/stats.htm) in support to your comments.
Thanks for the URL but the relevant section: The Effect of Experience on Crash Rates and Table 2 are just another rehash of John Forester's sophomoric comparisons of entirely different sets of survey data with only the barest minimum of any credible similarity in the surveyed populations. As is typical of a Forester analysis it excludes consideration of accident severities when inconvenient to the predetermined conclusion, and assigns all credit to specific (and unmeasured) variables. IMO, people who think such shoddy so-called analysis is anything close to a real analysis of risk or repeat such foolish stuff as gospel have no credibility.
Helmet Head
You did mention BLs in #10 when you wrote, inexplicably, "You read it as a bike lane hater believing I was writing about BL. "
Yes, in response to you mentioning it in first place.
Well, yeah, but then you said you never mentioned bike lanes:
Oh BTW you started the whole BL thing in your opening post... I never mentioned and it did not play one bit in my thinking
And it was not in response to what I said about bike lanes, since your comment was that I believed you were writing about BLs, and I believed no such thing, and wrote nothing that should have indicated to anyone that I did.
genec
Well, yeah, but then you said you never mentioned bike lanes:
And it was not in response to what I said about bike lanes, since your comment was that I believed you were writing about BLs, and I believed no such thing, and wrote nothing that should have indicated to anyone that I did.
In post 3, I never said one thing about bike lanes...
Yet in your response to me, in post 6 you explicitly mentioned bike lanes:
This is fundamental. It's why so many people like bike lanes - i.e., dedicated cycling space.
Get your history right.
I then responded to your post and told you it wasn't about BL at all...
But if you want to do this whole he said she said about something that matters not one bit with regard to the original issue... hey fine with me.
But your dentist doesn't give 2 cents about bike lanes... Nor "the Notion." So get over it.
Helmet Head
Yes, I mentioned bike lanes, but I never denied that I mentioned bike lanes.
You did mention bike lanes, and then you denied doing so.
When i did mention bike lanes, I did not say nor imply that you mentioned bike lanes.
And my dentist is yet another believer in the The Notion.
genec
Yes, I mentioned bike lanes, but I never denied that I mentioned bike lanes.
You did mention bike lanes, and then you denied doing so.
When i did mention bike lanes, I did not say nor imply that you mentioned bike lanes.
And my dentist is yet another believer in the The Notion.
Hey the history is right there for you and the world to examine. Clean your glasses.
Your dentist is a believer in soft leather seats and the comfort of climate control and 6 speaker CD stereo.... as are most dedicated motorists.
Cyclists are crazy folk... :D
sbhikes
Serge, people who won't bicycle commute because of the drivers out there are afraid whether or not there are bike lanes.
These are the same people I complained of in my thread about getting over the fear and getting off the sidewalk. These people tell me how dangerous I'm being even when I'm sitting in a bike lane waiting for a light 6 inches away from them on the sidewalk.
It may be your dentist is lazy and it may not be. If adult people who are engineers, teachers and yes, dentists (one guy I ride with is one), can feel this way even though they are cyclists, then the fear is real and probably due to something other than bike lanes.
I think some people have less tolerance for risk. I do lots of things other people won't do. I will backpack alone in the wilderness, for one thing. How many women will do that?
I think Gene has a point. You see what you know to look for. Most people look at the wilderness and see danger. I do not see that. Danger is there, yes, but I'm aware of what I'm doing. I don't even bring a cell phone. Part of the pleasure is the risk.
Lots of people do not find any pleasure in bodily risk. Either we are people who do, or we are people who know how to manage the risk, or we are foolish people who do not acknowledge the risk. Or maybe a little of all.
Bekologist
I wonder what HH's Dentist would really say about bicycling?
If the fella is a fit fellow, and he does live relatively close to his workplace, HH should ask him if he would be more likely to try riding his bicycle to work if there were wide, clean, well provided bicycle accomodations for portions of his route along busy arterials?
Regardless of HH's misconceptions about the intent of bike lanes, I'd bet people like his dentist would be more likely to try bikes for commuting if there were greater accomodations for bicyclists along roads, like integrated, well provided bike lanes, striping, signage, etc.....
John E
John Q. Public's perception is that road bicycling is dangerous. I counter that it is far safer for lawful, defensive, experienced, responsible, quasi-vehicular cyclists than for others, but, to be perfectly candid, inattentive and/or distracted motorists scare the cr@p out of me.
Roody
Thanks for the URL but the relevant section: The Effect of Experience on Crash Rates and Table 2 are just another rehash of John Forester's sophomoric comparisons of entirely different sets of survey data with only the barest minimum of any credible similarity in the surveyed populations. As is typical of a Forester analysis it excludes consideration of accident severities when inconvenient to the predetermined conclusion, and assigns all credit to specific (and unmeasured) variables. IMO, people who think such shoddy so-called analysis is anything close to a real analysis of risk or repeat such foolish stuff as gospel have no credibility.
Would you mind explaining the problems with this study in a little more detail? There wasn't much to go on in the original link.
derath
My dentist races bicycles.
-D
ewitz
Maybe next time he leans over you with his outstretched arms and no BO you will be happy he chooses to be coddled in his heated leather seats surrounded by two tons of steel. You really are a holier than thou group of people.
I ride 10-12000 km a year. I would not even consider commuting. I want that time in my car to listen to the news and drink my coffee in peace and quiet.
Az B
Yet I would be terrified to ride a motorcycle. And I think people who ride motorcycles are taking a tremendous risk. Is there a disconnect?
To my mind, it's mostly the speed factor -- having an accident at 35-65mph on a motorcycle is different than having one below 30mph on a bicycle (and with me, it would be more like below 15mph).
As a long time motorcyclist and bicyclist, we share many of the same risks and traps. As you mention the issue of speed, it's a double edged sword. Many bicyclists that are killed in a crash are killed when they are hit from behind. Since they are relatively much slower moving traffic, this can be particularly violnet because of the speed differential. Obviously, the higher speed of a motorcycle makes this less of an issue, as well as removing the right hook problem. The left hook, however, is equally a problem and is more painful on a motorcycle because of the speed.
Back to Mr. and Mrs. Two Car Garage's perceptions of cyclists of both kinds, it has always been odd to me that people will go out of thier way to tell you stories of folks that were killed on motorcycles or bicycles, yet never tell you about the folks killed while in thier cars, even though many more thousands a year are killed in cars. It's also unfortunate that we panic about things like the possibility of bird flu, while completely ignoring the epidemic of obesity and the killing fields that our highways have become. (Nearly 50,000 people a year are killed on our nation's highways)
Az
-=Łem in Pa=-
Yet I would be terrified to ride a motorcycle. And I think people who ride motorcycles are taking a tremendous risk. Is there a disconnect?
To my mind, it's mostly the speed factor -- having an accident at 35-65mph on a motorcycle is different than having one below 30mph on a bicycle (and with me, it would be more like below 15mph).
I ride MC's too......An MC crash (Ive had two on the road) is very unpleasant to say the least,
but even with more scary stuff to worry about on a MC, I feel waaaay safer on one than
I do on a bicycle. I feel much less vulnerable to the things that worry me on a bicycle.
There is also the built in 'scare' factor....Violence prone car drivers image of motorcycler is that
they are outlawish and not scared of anything whereas a bicycler is an insipid, granola and sprout
munching hippy, liberal, panty waist.........
My dentist races bicycles.
-D
My dentist is an MTB'er....
Im sure I financed his latest purchase :roflmao:
Im OK with him on a bike I could never afford but
the MTB part........Im having a l i i i i i i ttle trouble with :roflmao:
I-Like-To-Bike
Would you mind explaining the problems with this study in a little more detail? There wasn't much to go on in the original link.
Bottom Line Up Front: The analysis is worthless for comparing or evaluating cyclist risk since the surveys almost entirely ignore measurement and consideration of exposure to accident variables and the severity of the injuries incurred.
This "analysis" is a summary of an attempt (mostly inspired by the sophomoric and simple minded analytical methods and data cherry picking practices of John Forester) to compare data from several surveys of "crashes" (defined as the sum of all falls and collisions). These surveys made almost no attempt to define actual cyclist risk; which would require measuring "crash" result severities, and exposure rate to the various accident variables. None of the surveys made any serious attempt to define accident severities.
The Kaplan survey included "accidents" where there was no personal injury at all, and there was nothing in the survey methodology to prevent counting damage to the bicycle, let alone a skinned knee as a "serious" accident. The Aultman-Hall study defined a "major" injury as any injury that required "medical attention"; a definition that considered skinned knees or a sprain the same as catastrophic injuries. Visits to an ER (without consideration of overnight admission data) is only barely more indicative of the actual accident severities being compared.
None of the surveys had any similar (or in some cases any) method of measuring actual cycling exposures to various risk variables (mileage, locations, purpose of trips, etc) of the respondents. Some never measured this data at all. To evaluate risk, let alone draw conclusions, from such incredibly simple minded meta analysis strains credibility of any person not agenda driven to see what they want.
Cyclist advocates do not do cycling, or their own credibility, any favors by relying on such dopey attempts to manipulate and manufacture data to create risk evaluation conclusions. Conclusions based on dogma driven "analysis" rather than honest evaluation of facts and credible analysis.
Side Note: The meta analysis of several of these totally unrelated surveys has also been used by Forester and his acolytes to draw all kinds of speculative conclusions. Most notoriously, the quantitative value of vehicular cycling techniques and Forester's proprietary brand of cycling education material to drastically reduce (by 80%!) bicycling accident risk for the general population. Quite a trick of analysis since none of the surveys identified or measured any vehicular cycling attributes of the respondents.
Second Note: I do not intend to debate any of the above with the Forester acolytes anymore than I will debate the "truth" found in the Bible/Koran/etc. with true believers of their "Good Book".
If you want more detail than that, study up on risk evaluation. If you still can't figure out what is wrong with these so-called risk analyses; remain happy in your gullibility.
I-Like-To-Bike
My dentist is an MTB'er....
Im sure I financed his latest purchase :roflmao:
I think my family financed our dentist's yacht. :(
banerjek
1) I'd say less than 10%.
Sounds about right. Despite the fact that I bike just about every day and feel comfortable on the roads, I must admit that when I see cyclists on my own route on the very rare days I drive, I inevitably find myself thinking they are insane.
Of course these are just guesses,but no one can seriously argue that biking to work is safer than driving to work(even if you attempt to factor in the arguable health benefits)
Actually, this is exactly what I believe. Granted, my risk of serious physical injury or death by accident is probably significantly higher than it is for most people. However, I am safer against virtually every other threat to my well being. I don't get sick and I'm the only one in my family who doesn't take blood pressure and cholesterol medication with the exception of a very active vegetarian brother. I don't injure as easily as most people and I heal quickly. I am stronger and have far more endurance than most healthy college students who are 20 years younger than me. I'm sure the same could be said for most cyclists who ride as much as I do. I think if more people rode a lot, a greater percentage would make it to old age, and as a group they would be able to enjoy that time of their life more.
sbhikes
I think riding my bike to work is safer than driving, too. For ME. I can't say for everybody.
In order to drive the 10 minutes to work I must navigate some congested streets and intersections where fender-bender accidents are not unusual. Then I get on the freeway. The stretch of freeway I drive goes from 3 lanes to 2 right over a bridge where it has not been unheard of to have semi trucks fall over the side. Once I pass that bridge, I must drive a section of freeway where about half of the on/off ramps are on the left side instead of the right. And the on ramps are not long enough to provide adequate time for people to reach 65mph before they need to merge. Thus it is not the safest section of freeway. I use a left exit to get off, then drive up a narrow windy road that is highly congested with short-cut seekers coming the opposite way. Most of them drive this narrow windy road way too fast, cutting the corners and causing near head-on collisions every time I use this road. It is this that actually started me on the path to riding my bike instead.
Now, compare that to my bicycle ride. To ride to work I can escape a lot of the congestion by using the bike lane. I avoid the bad intersections completely since I'm not getting on the freeway. I cut through a residential section of town, get on another road with a wide bike lane, then jump on the beach bike path. For most of the year this MUP is empty enough that this is a good way to go. The rest of the year I simply stay on the road along the beach. At the end of the bike path, I follow a bike lane on a road without much traffic all the way to the narrow, windy road up to my office. That narrow, windy road is still dangerous, and now I must deal with the fact that I hold up a lot of impatient people behind me as I churn away at 4 mph up the hill. But head-ons aren't a problem anymore since I take up so little space. Those opposite drivers can cut the corners all the way if they want. I can still squeeze by.
When I get to work I'm refreshed and happy from the energy, the beauty (if I vary the route a bit I can even see dolphins frolicking in the ocean.) It seems much more healty and safe if you ask me. And when I don't drive I ride this same route--minus the bike path and bike lane--on my Vespa. It is so much more enjoyable and safe than driving.
Brian Ratliff
Diane, you get to see dolphins?! Man, am I living in the wrong place.
Brian Ratliff
ILTB - well stated. The weaknesses of these studies in giving data about risk is, too often, ignored in the face of the data appearing to give conclusions which match with some people's expectations. This is a good case of coming to the conclusion first, then cherry picking data to support that conclusion.