Advocacy & Safety - Interesting article in insurance company newsletter

I was quite surprised to see an article on cycling advocacy (http://www.amica.com/aboutUs/magazine/summer_2007/Amica_Today_Summer_2007.pdf) in the quarterly newsletter my insurance company publishes.

that was good. It would have been better had they revealed the amount of cycling collisions were the result of not following those recomondations given. That leaves someone who follows those recomondations to see how many cyclists have problems when doing so. Very few.

Hey that's my insurance company! :)

That was interesting. I read the second article, which was about motorcycles, then the rest of the bicycle article, which was continued from the first page.

Then the last article was about inflating tires with [dry] nitrogen. That's interesting. When I was in the Navy and aboard a carrier, the tires of all Navy aircraft were inflated with dry nitrogen (which means all water vapor and oxygen have been removed from the air).
It was mentioned that Nitrogen moleculs are larger than oxygen, and do not leak out as fast.
But there are some other benefits not mentioned in the short article.
Nitrogen does not cause oxidation. The Navy removes oxygen and water vapor from it's aircraft tires because oxidation can destroy wheels. The Navy inflates it's tires to a whopping 400psi, so if the aluminum wheel were to corrode, it could destroy the wheel, and then the aircraft could be destroyed.
In a fire , if a tire bursts, Nitrogen assures there will not be any oxygen added to thew fire.
Water vapor can condense, which will cause the tire to have a lower pressure.

And I have an ammusing annecdote. While aboard the carrier, a couple of the officers had their road bikes aboard the ship. We had some R&R, and the officers decided to enter a bicycle race in Belgium. They remembered my streamlined Human Powered Vehicle, so they asked me if I had any advice.
I had read of a Human Powered Vehicle setting a world record, and one of the tricks was, they used Nitrogen, @ 200 psi to inflate the tires.
So I told the Officers they should inflate their tires to 200 psi with some of the ample nitrogen we had on board.
They did, and one of the Officers won the bicycle race!
Unfortunately, there is a conflict between the IHPVA and the UCI.
We all know the two organizations conflict on the use of recumbents and fairings, but the darned UCI also forbids using nitrogen to inflate the bicycle tires.
So my shipmate was disqualified and the runner up took first prize.

... the darned UCI also forbids using nitrogen to inflate the bicycle tires.
So my shipmate was disqualified and the runner up took first prize.

Har har, that's a nice sea story there ;-)

that article is a sign that they are paying out more claims

that article is a sign that they are paying out more claims

Really? How do you get that?

I would guess that they're trying to get drivers and cyclists to use the road properly and that would lead to fewer claim payouts.

Really? How do you get that?

I would guess that they're trying to get drivers and cyclists to use the road properly and that would lead to fewer claim payouts.Which is the point of writing the article, to change a high number of claims to a lower number of claims.

In general, that is a good article. It's intended to be read by motorists, so the information is kept fairly simple.

...did I say that?!? :D

I would have liked to have read something about the motorist giving the cyclist 6' or so when they pass. Did I miss it?

Getting "buzzed" is a major complaint of many cyclists on this forum.

...and the law is written that a cyclist should ride as far to the right as PRACTICABLE (not possible). Well, at least that's how CA law is written...

For those who want to debate the finer points of cycling, we always have S&A!

Thanks for sharing the article, piper chuck!

Which is the point of writing the article, to change a high number of claims to a lower number of claims.

but where is it in the article that that is the case? If it isn't, is there some other information that that is the case?

Seems to me to just be an article of information to help educate the readers. It's not uncommon that an article like this can be printed even with declining or static rates of claims.

I was quite surprised to see an article on cycling advocacy (http://www.amica.com/aboutUs/magazine/summer_2007/Amica_Today_Summer_2007.pdf) in the quarterly newsletter my insurance company publishes.

Thanks for letting us know about this.

Found a fascinating snippet on the second page re: motorcyclists:

Motorcycle safety: Many older riders overlook the need to take bike safety courses or refresher courses, regardless of their level of experience. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters recently called on bike manufacturers to provide free or heavily discounted DOT-certified helmets or ride safety training with the purchase of every new motorcycle sold in the United States.

I'm assuming she wouldn't commit the political suicide act of suggesting this action for all motor vehicle sales...

This is the same Mary Peters who said on the MacNeil Lehrer Newshour (August 15) that bike paths and trails are not "transportation-related" or "infrastructure". Just one of many people who are pointing fingers at funding of active transportation as one of the causes of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, because of funds being diverted from infrastructure upgrades.

This despite the fact that a significant portion of federal funds provided for these upgrades over the last decade were simply not spent. Oh, and the fact that only about one percent of any federal transportation funding goes toward active transportation.

Too stupid for words. If any of you are on the Thunderhead list, you'll find lots of discussion and some great commentary/facts on the issue.

I'll hold my comment on the issue of some posters therein having created part of the problem by pursuing funding for infrastructure while virtually ignoring the possibility of gaining funding for education...

Allan

...having created part of the problem by pursuing funding for infrastructure while virtually ignoring the possibility of gaining funding for education...

Allan

a pet peeve of mine. Money for infrastructure, no money for education.

What good is infrastructure if no one uses it correctly because they don't know how?

Anytime cyclists and motorists are reminded that we legally share the actual roadways, it is a good thing.

but where is it in the article that that is the case? If it isn't, is there some other information that that is the case?

Seems to me to just be an article of information to help educate the readers. It's not uncommon that an article like this can be printed even with declining or static rates of claims.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WST_Bicycle_Lawyers.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WST_Bicycle_Lawyers.html

I just did a quick scan, but didn't the article say, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported bicyclists injured in traffic crashes was down 2% from the previous years and, the Washington State Department of Transportation reported that vehicle collisions with cyclists have stayed relatively steady in the last five years?

Up here in BC, the collisions between bicycles and cars is remarkably steady despite the increase in traffic. Doesn't that indicate a downward trend here too?

Maybe Idaho is crash rate is growing, it's not clear the way it's written. If so, it seems to be against the national trend

Yes it did, but it also said insurance claims and lawyer involvement is way up. More expensive bikes and cyclist not willing to take crap anymore = far more pay outs to cyclist from insurance companies.

Yes, right. Y'know, I thought about that over dinner and was going to edit my post.

I think court action is a good thing because then there's an incentive to try and prevent these collisions from happening.

I settled about 10 years ago over a collision and made quite a pretty penny, but I still would have prefered to not have had the collision, no matter how much money I made. I'm sure the insurance company didn't care about me, but didn't like to lose the money.