Originally posted by John C. Ratliff

What I'm encouraging is that you look at your own cycling experience, and see what you can do right now, with your own behavior, which will lessen your chances of being injured by a car.


And what I'm saying, no offense intended, is "no sh*t, Sherlock!"

That's much of the essense of Effective Cycling right there. It's what experienced cyclists do by training and developed instinct.

Your "ABI" methodology is wonderfully scientific-sounding, but I challenge your contention that you don't feel threatened by them all, even the 10-foot ones. If you didn't, you wouldn't be trying to avoid them. Since it is impossible to be part of traffic without being passed much closer than that by a multitude of cars, it's pretty clear that you feel threatened by traffic as a class.

I don't suggest that there's no threat. Everyone out there -- drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike -- are assuming risks when they hit the road. And I'm not interested in re-opening the "who's at biggest risk?" can of worms. Worms and statistics are both slippery and don't die when you cut 'em in half.

Rather, I'm contending that "fear is the mind-killer" as Frank Herbert had it. If you ride scared, you'll get hurt sooner rather than later, because you've become unpredictable to other road users. You'll change positions when there's no reason (apparent to others) for doing so. You'll hesitate when you should be assertive, you'll yield when you have the right of way, you'll damage your bike on debris in the shoulder because you're afraid to take the lane.

And one last thing. Cycling in traffic requires complete concentration, IMO. Doing on-the-fly statistical analysis of "ABIs" might not be what you should be focusing on, hm?

RichC

Originally posted by Pete Clark


My "plan" starts with the idea that convincing a few fellow cyclists (and motorists) that something should be done about lawlessness on the roads will make a difference. Part of the problem is apathy, something I hope to change.



You think that will get the legislature to change the law and the police to enforce it?

Good luck.

IMHO, a plan might be to mobilize all on Bikeforums.net and other internet groups into a "letter writing, see your legislature, go to the capital and lobby, get spots on TV and radio shows, get letters in the newspapers, get interviews in the newspapers, etc." type of group.

A single individual is most unlikely to effect change by himself in the political system.

Join and support your local, state and/or national advocacy group. I have, have you?

It takes groups, politics, strength to get change, to get laws passed, to get enforcement changed.

I have had some experience over the years in making some changes in disability rights, disability school laws and access laws and enforcement.

It can be done, but very unlikely by a single individual.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff the stats I was talking about turned out to be heart disease states you cited from Ken's materials;

So are you saying that the benefits from daily aerobic exercise someone can get from cycling, would not improve the chances of prevention or survival of 70 people each year from the 80,000 people that die in Canada from heart disease?

but don't put on all this scare-mongering to try to put others off doing what is safer for them.



This is amazing.

NOWHERE in this thread have I advocated that one single person follow my example.

To the contrary, I think everyone should choose what and where they want to ride.

I was sharing my feelings about riding on roads, and somehow you feel threatened or whatever and change my feelings into scare-mongering and trying to get others to do things differently.

Have you really read the entire thread, especially my comments?

It seems to me that you are uncomfortable discussing controversial issues. Right? If so, why is that?

Maybe when and if I reach my 60's I'll sing a different tune but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, but as it stands now I'd rather be a Rich Clark than a Denver Fox.

Darn!!

There goes my hope for a clone. :D

Anybody who'd rather "be a Rich Clark" has much more serious problems than where to ride their bikes! :D

RichC

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Closetbiker,

You can cite all the stats you wish, but the fact is that the person your are citing is now dead.
John, this is a good point. I have three points to make concerning yours.

Firstly if the fact that Ken was killed by a drunk driver discounted his position on road cycling safety, then the heart-attack death of exercise physiologist, Ed Burke, would discount the wealth of professional expertise he brought to bear in his writings. These were simply unfortunate events that in no way compromise the messages of these men, whose works are well-respected.

Secondly, the driver that killed Ken was drunk. He ran off the road and overcorrected into the opposite lane, hitting Ken. Had Ken been cycling on an adjacent path, he could just as easily have been killed. Unless you advocate a bike path separated by a concrete wall, a bike path would offer no protection here. In addition, pedestrians and drivers would have been at risk. I remember a court case for which I was called for jury duty in which an intoxicated man crossed the center line and killed an elderly couple--in their car.

Finally, many well-known cyclists could be mentioned that are healthy and happy. Two that come to mind are Claire Duckham of Dayton, Ohio, who if still alive, is probably 100 years old and still riding centuries--on the road; the other is a "little old lady" named Nancy Fortin, who rides on the road every day, from 30 to 50 miles (I forget how old she is, but I think well ahead of most of us.) But like the saying goes, good news doesn't sell newspapers.

Originally posted by Rich Clark
And what I'm saying, no offense intended, is "no sh*t, Sherlock!"
I have a great deal of respect for your positions, arguments, experience and insight, Rich. Your arguments alone are sufficient to convince me. Comments of the above type are overkill.

Originally posted by Chris L
From [url]

By all means, ride on a path if you feel more comfortable there, but don't put on all this scare-mongering to try to put others off doing what is safer for them. I personally feel safer on the roads than the paths, and as such will continue to ride on the roads.


Chris - Have I really been "Scare-mongering?" and "trying to put others off?"

Is discussion of controversial issues inappropriate?

At least get your facts correct.

This is from my original post. Notice the emphasis on "I".

So, I have reached a conclusion that reinforces what I have already been practicing.

Why is it that people have this need to change the intent of a personal post about my own decision into some sort of attack, attempting to make me some sort of "scare-mongerer?"

Chris, do what you like about riding, and I will do what I like. In the meantime, if the thread upsets you, don't read it.

"Scare-mongering" indeed!!

This is ludicrous.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
You think that will get the legislature to change the law and the police to enforce it?
I never said I wanted to change the law--quite the opposite. I said I was for enforcing existing laws.

You say that I as a single individual can do nothing. I don't accept that premise. If I did, I should lie down and die right now, and get it over with.

I don't think you really believe that, anyway, since you, a single individual, are arguing energetically to change my mind (that of a single individual,) as if you believed that somehow it might make a difference.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
I never said I wanted to change the law--quite the opposite. I said I was for enforcing existing laws.

Aren't you?

Okay - then do you think this will get the police to enforce the law, forget the legislature. I guess the current laws are fine?

Of course I am for enforcing the current laws. How do you get that done? Talking to some bicycling friends won't get it done. Writing about it on BicycleForums.net won't. What will?

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Okay - then do you think this will get the police to enforce the law, forget the legislature. I guess the current laws are fine?

Of course I am for enforcing the current laws. How do you get that done? Talking to some bicycling friends won't get it done. Writing about it on BicycleForums.net won't. What will?
You hold to the belief that talking about it is fruitless, yet you persist doing exactly that.

Well, another controversial post by DnvrFox. I guess, at the very least, I stimulate some thought, although many folks find me irritating. So be it.
So, is this what they call a "troll"?

Have I really been "Scare-mongering?" and "trying to put others off?"
I say, yes, or you would have started this thread.

NOWHERE in this thread have I advocated that one single person follow my example I was sharing my feelings about riding on roads, and somehow you feel threatened or whatever and change my feelings into scare-mongering and trying to get others to do things differently.
This is true, but I see it as implied.

The facts for where I live. If I didn't ride on the road, I wouldn't ride! There are NO, NODA, NONE, 0, bike paths for anyone to ride on. Many of the roads here don't have sidewalks. I beleave the best tool a bike rider has is what is under his helmet, except for closetbiker, who has his under his thick matt of hair(BTW I don't have hair, so I wear a helmet). I couldn't MTB, because there is NO public land, so I ride roadie and don't feel threatened in the least. For the record, most of the population of the this country that doesn't live in a major city must chose to ride the roads, or don't ride.

Some of the best advice about the road I learned from one of our ER nurses, who is an avid motorcyclist.
1. No one can see you!
2. If they can, they are trying to kill you!
These rules work well for bicyclist also. I was almost hit by my next door neighbor yesterday evening. I was looking at her make a rolling stop and she couldn't see me for the sun in her face. You have to look out for yourself.

If the written word is ineffective, then let's burn all the history books.

A few days back, I posted a message here about the relative risk of fatal injury cycling vs operating a motorized vehicle. From the statistics, I estimated that operating a motorized vehicle was about 10 times as risky as an experienced cyclist riding on the road. I did point out that often I did not "feel" as safe riding as driving.

Now Denver Fox took this comment about not "feeling" as safe as a confirmation of his decision to eschew roads and ride on bike paths.

Well, I think he missed the point of my post. First off, to me, "feelings" are pretty irrelevant and often misleading. I am a firmer belief in facts and statistics. By the way, I am reasonably expert in statistics.

Personally, I suspect that riding on bike paths is riskier then riding on the roads. Bike paths seem to be virtual mine fields of dern fools who seem intent on inflicting bodily harm on any cyclists who dare use the paths. Bike paths can be used at very slow speed and with one's paranoia operating at FULL ALERT. But generally, I feel much safer and comfortable out on the road with the semis (huge trucks) which generally do operate by traffic rules.

As a bit of confirmation, in our local club, the only fatality we have had has been on a bike path. And our next worst injury was one involving neural damage and that one happened on a bike path also.

Gosh bike paths scare me. In facts, I think the very name is on oxymoron. It seems that cyclists are the least favored users of bike paths. It seems that pedestrians, dogs on leashes, dogs off leashes, roller bladers, toddlers, runners, joggers, and people holding discussions in the middle of the path all take precidence over cyclists. But they don't call them pedestrian-dog-skater-runner-jogger-child-and discussion forum paths do they? I wonder why not?

Shoot motorists want to kick cyclists off the road onto "bike paths" but it seems that cyclists are no more welcome on "bike paths" then on the road. I have come to the conclusion that cyclists are persona non grata in all situations by the general populace. We are wrong because we exist and nothing short of extermination will make people happy.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
It takes groups, politics, strength to get change, to get laws passed, to get enforcement changed.
Of course, nobody disputes this.

Yet belonging to a cycling advocacy organization does not put one squarely in the pro-path, anti-path or anything-in-between
camp.

But among experienced cyclists, I think there is a growing consensus that for cycling to remain practical in the United States, cyclists must be accomodated with motor traffic on the road, even if there is some lack of consensus about the degree to which bike paths and bike lanes should be included in this picture, and how they should be designed. Basically everyone is for increased road safety.

Who was it that started the MADD organization? Wasn't is a woman who had lost a loved one to a drunk driver? Isn't that a picture of a single individual making a difference by influencing others to rally around her cause?

Originally posted by Pete Clark
I have a great deal of respect for your positions, arguments, experience and insight, Rich. Your arguments alone are sufficient to convince me. Comments of the above type are overkill.

Pete, what I meant by the comment was that after all the many paragraphs of "data and analysis" that John presented, he reached the conclusion that

"What I'm encouraging is that you look at your own cycling experience, and see what you can do right now, with your own behavior, which will lessen your chances of being injured by a car."

To me, that's a conclusion that's so obvious and already so deeply ingrained in any experienced cyclist's consciousness that it hardly needs repeating, and certainly didn't need all that set-up.

"No sh*t, Sherlock" is a slang phrase that means "please don't belabor the obvious." If you took it to mean something else, or were offended by its crudeness, I'm sorry. But I did mean it.

RichC

Originally posted by Pat

Personally, I suspect that riding on bike paths is riskier then riding on the roads. Bike paths seem to be virtual mine fields of dern fools who seem intent on inflicting bodily harm on any cyclists who dare use the paths. Bike paths can be used at very slow speed and with one's paranoia operating at FULL ALERT. But generally, I feel much safer and comfortable out on the road with the semis (huge trucks) which generally do operate by traffic rules.



I usea new bike trail near us quite often and have found it to be more pleasant and practical than i hought it would be. Nonetheless, I think the money spent on 'bike paths' would be much better spend on providing better shoulders on as many roads as possible. Here in the Berkshires of Massachusetts I find route 7 north, with its generous shoulders and sweeping views of the Taconic mountains, to be far more enjoyable riding than the rail trail, which is down on the swampy flats with relatively little view and creative terrain. But each have their flavours and features.

I agree this is difficult in urban areas.

Roughstuff

Roughstuff
I ride in that are often, the new trail from Pittsfield to Adams is one of the nicest I've seen. The area really needed that. Route 7 and Route 2 toward Greenfield are both great rides.
Pete

Originally posted by mrfix
Roughstuff
I ride in that are often, the new trail from Pittsfield to Adams is one of the nicest I've seen. The area really needed that. Route 7 and Route 2 toward Greenfield are both great rides.
Pete

I think there are parts of Rt 8 that needed it, but on balance the shoulders on Rt 8 are nice too. The area along Cheshire Lake is fantastic. I do find, as others have chuckled, that dogs, bladers and chatters fill up the space: but hey, i love seeing on the trail instead of in their cars at the nearby mall.

I like Rt 2, but Rt 116 is nice and has less traffic. 112, which connects 'nowhere' on rt 2 with 'nowhere' on rt 20 is a classic western mass road. It is now wider in many areas and this has removed alot of its charm: you used to be able to reach out and touch the rock outcrops lining the road.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Darn!!

There goes my hope for a clone. :D
I'm glad we all have a sense of humor around here!

Denver, I really value your friendship and I respect your convictions. Though we disagree on a few points, what we have in common far outweighs our disagreements.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
I'm glad we all have a sense of humor around here!

Denver, I really value your friendship and I respect your convictions. Though we disagree on a few points, what we have in common far outweighs our disagreements.

Thanks, and I also agree with you.

We enjoy together

- a deep joy of cycling

- a desire to keep fit even as we reach an age where others consider us unfit to even drive!

- a respect for all who have the courage, energy and desire to leave their cars behind, even if for only a bit, and venture out on that most efficient of machines - the bicycle.

- the peace and serenity that comes, at least to me, from the bicycling experience.

And we perhaps disagree just a little on where and how the safest way to bike is, and how to get that safety increased.

So what?

Our friendship will survive worse than that.

Thanks.

Originally posted by DnvrFox
And we perhaps disagree just a little on where and how the safest way to bike is, and how to get that safety increased.

So what?

Our friendship will survive worse than that.
I feel the same way

:D

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Chris - Have I really been "Scare-mongering?" and "trying to put others off?"

Is discussion of controversial issues inappropriate?

At least get your facts correct.

Let's see, you start a thread entitled "on deaths, dying and bicyclijng", you then post a whole heap of reasons about why cycling on roads must surely be "dangerous" without a single fact to back it up (apart from one recent death, which is a lot less than many other activities). I'd say that this is a pretty good attempt at scaremongering.

And what exactly is so controversial about it? The whole "riding on the road is so dangerous" is nothing new or innovative. It was a load of crap when I started riding, and it's still a load of crap over 100,000km later.

There's nothing incorrect about my facts, although one could easily question yours. While you're at it, you might also tell me what exactly in my post constituted a personal attack of any kind. I merely said that the content of the post I quoted amounted to scare-mongering, and I'm still convinced that it does.

Originally posted by DnvrFox

Chris, do what you like about riding, and I will do what I like. In the meantime, if the thread upsets you, don't read it.

This from someone who wrote:

All that writing is all just a waste of bandwidth, energy and time.

Perhaps you might consider practicing what you preach if you consider some of the posts here to be such a waste of your precious time.

I don't have a lot of time for a long-winded reply, but you guys got it wrong with me. First, Ken Kifer's death was, and is, a shock. Realize that, and respect the process some have to go through. If that process means re-evaluating some basic assumptions, so be it. This really has nothing to do with logic, and statistics about how safe cycling is. It simply is the very human response to a tragedy. I say again, please respect that.

For those who feel that I'm fairly skiddish about bicycling, I have 75 miles this week, on both paths and roads. That, for me, is a pretty good week of riding. The paths around my place are not densely inhabited by foot traffic, or any other traffic. It is unusual when I encounter a person, and I usually stop to let them by (I'm not in that much of a rush, and encountering them is much more pleasant than a car). This might happen twice a day.

Riding a bike path is much quieter, and nicer, than riding on the road. I do count cars occasionally, and have this week, as a means to satisfy that deep craving for information about my own environment. If someone else wants to use my technique, at least they know of it. If not, don't. I don't care. It is simply another approach to deciding which roads have the most traffic.

We've been enjoying unusually good weather here, the days this week were all sunny, and the commutes were very nice. My noon rides showed me some interesting country, that I'll explore more in the weeks to come. I hope everyone enjoys the weekend.

John

PS--I might start a thread titled, "On life, living, and bicycling." It seems much more positive than this thread's title.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
I don't have a lot of time for a long-winded reply, but you guys got it wrong with me. First, Ken Kifer's death was, and is, a shock. Realize that, and respect the process some have to go through. If that process means re-evaluating some basic assumptions, so be it. This really has nothing to do with logic, and statistics about how safe cycling is. It simply is the very human response to a tragedy. I say again, please respect that.

Nobody is arguing with that. I went through the same process when I heard about it myself. However my perspective may have been different because I was scheduled to meet a friend of mine for a ride about 30 minutes after hearing the news. I guess that ride changed the way I re-evaluated things. Maybe it was just the beautiful sea breeze and the scent of the south Pacific in the air, maybe it was just the company on the ride, I don't know.

Ultimately, I realised that, as tragic as that one death is, there's no guarantee that it could have been prevented by any other means, and that it does not automatically mean that cycling is suddenly any more dangerous than it was a week ago. Ultimately every human activity carries risk. Even things like eating and breathing, but I'm not going to stop doing that.

What I want to know is this. If anyone found a driving forum where someone popular and well-respected had been killed in an auto accident, would be getting the same questions about the "safety of driving" being asked? This is what gets me about this thread and the way it started. Cycling is not a certain way to ensure your death, nor is it ever going to be 100% safe. I personally believe skin cancer is going to get me first anyway, but I could be wrong.

Either way, you're right about this thread's title, and I'm done with it myself.

Originally posted by Chris L
Either way, you're right about this thread's title, and I'm done with it myself.
I'm not!

I'm fed up with the dangers that careless, uneducated, mindless, blind, unthinking, I-will-live-forever-thinking motorists pose to good, caring, thoughtful indivuduals.

It's time to treat vehicular manslaughter as what it is: "man slaughter."

:mad:

I am as comfortable talking about deaths and dying as I am talking about lives and living; such is the safety and rescue professions. Both have something to teach us; one in what to learn not to do, the other in how to enjoy the life that we have.

But, Western thought about death is not this way, and perhaps that is why some have gotten after both DnvrFox and myself about even discussing these situations. Most Westerners do not want to face the thought of injury, and even talking about accident prevention can get some thinking we are negative. Maybe it would be better if we viewed it as "history" and try to learn from other's situations, both positive and negative.

Ken Kifer lived his life the way he wanted; some of us are attempting that too. I try to live mine, not on the edge, but in a manner that is meaningful to me, will help me physically and psychologically, and keep me healthy.

Most of what bicycling is about is very healthy. Many have written about the benifits to physical well-being of bicycle riding, the exercise, keeping weight down, circulatory fitness, improvements in muscle strength and balance, etc.

These can be counterbalanced by bicycling's negatives, and injuries are one of those negatives. Personally, I have decided that my last major accident is my last major accident. One more, and I will find a different way of doing things, getting around, etc., because the over-riding goal of my bicycle riding is to keep going for a long, long time. The measures I am taking now are ones that I've decided, based upon personal and professional experience, will be best for me over the next twenty-five to fifty years (the rest of my probable lifespan). So if some think that I'm being over-cautious, so be it; I'll probably out-live them. I'm still getting good milage, and pretty good average speeds. But, I am determined not to put myself in a position of again ending up in a hospital, not remembering the last hour of my life, or worse.

I will also keep posting my ABIs, and yesterday evening I had 52, with one I would consider a near miss and one distracted driver. The near miss was when I was in a center lane to turn left, going down a hill, and a driver in the approaching lane decided to pass the car in front without looking too well (or maybe he saw me and decided to pass anyway). He caused me to move over a bit, and passed about twenty feet behind me to go around the car ahead. This is to get in line for a red light about another two blocks ahead.

I'm recording these, because near miss situations are what we learn from in accident prevention. It's along the same lines of a special section of my diving log which I've kept over the last thirty or so years. That section is called "Special Problems and their Solutions." No dive is perfect; no bicycle trip is perfect either. If we track these problem situations, where they occur, how they occur, and what we can do about them, we can see trends. Once a trend develops, an accident is much more likely from that specific type of incident. Then preventive measures need to go into effect to keep that incident type from happening again.

This can be applied to any situation. I've applied it to many work situations, from loggers to office ergonomics to fork lift training to a nickel mine/smelter to a school, these trends can be seen, tracked and measured, and then protective measures taken.

By the way, I just got word today that Oregon's Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed bills that strengthen both pedestrian rights (by forcing cars to stop and remain stopped while pedestrians are in a marked crosswalk), raising the stakes for drunk drivers. I haven't read the latter, but apparently Oregon will be getting much tougher on drunk drivers with this legislation.

John

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Speeding and driving recklessly have become socially acceptable. Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Once a trend develops, an accident is much more likely from that specific type of incident. Then preventive measures need to go into effect to keep that incident type from happening again

Oh alright, one more.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
I am as comfortable talking about deaths and dying as I am talking about lives and living; such is the safety and rescue professions. Both have something to teach us; one in what to learn not to do, the other in how to enjoy the life that we have.

But, Western thought about death is not this way, and perhaps that is why some have gotten after both DnvrFox and myself about even discussing these situations. Most Westerners do not want to face the thought of injury, and even talking about accident prevention can get some thinking we are negative.


I can deal with accident/injury/death prevention. However, what I have an issue with is why some activities are painted as being "dangerous" more often than others, without necessarily having a greater number of incidents.

As I quoted earlier in the thread, the number of cyclist deaths in the US is relatively small compared to the number of deaths from other activities. Even if we break it down to the number of deaths per hour, cycling still comes out much safer than other activities (including driving. I believe Closetbiker quoted these statistics in one of the helmet threads). So why then does cycling end up with this perception of being "dangerous" when those other activities do not? This is what I do not understand.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Maybe it would be better if we viewed it as "history" and try to learn from other's situations, both positive and negative.

Ken Kifer lived his life the way he wanted; some of us are attempting that too.

Yes, trying to learn from others' actions is all well and good - if it is done properly and fully. To simply claim "Ken Kifer was killed while cycling, so cycling is dangerous" is not to tell the full story. As was documented in the threads on Ken's death on this forum, a drunk driver was careering out of control down the wrong side of the road and ploughed into him. Had he been in a car or on foot, the same thing would have happened.

About the only thing that one can say would have certainly prevented Ken's death would have been removing the drunk driver from the road. However, it's easier for some to just grab for the low-lying fruit, so we get people claiming "cycling is dangerous" without looking at the real issue.

Most of what bicycling is about is very healthy. Many have written about the benifits to physical well-being of bicycle riding, the exercise, keeping weight down, circulatory fitness, improvements in muscle strength and balance, etc.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
These can be counterbalanced by bicycling's negatives, and injuries are one of those negatives.

But again, this is a negative that is a fact across life. I look back on all of the cycling crashes I have ever had and conclude one thing - all of them would have happened had I been in a car at the time, and all would have resulted in much more severe consequences in the latter circumstance. When you get right down to it, cycling is a very forgiving activity, very few cycling accidents are ever going to be fatal (despite the fact that they tend to receive more attention).

Last February I suffered my worst illness in over 15 years (possibly my worst ever) - a severe case of food poisoning. Does that mean I'm going to stop eating?

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Personally, I have decided that my last major accident is my last major accident. One more, and I will find a different way of doing things, getting around, etc.,

Entirely your decision. However, I hope you aren't looking for a method of travel that is totally risk-free, because in an imperfect world there will never be one. I believe the fact that I can talk about my cycling accidents is a testament to the relative safety of cycling, because I don't believe I would have been here to talk about similar driving accidents.

Last February I suffered my worst illness in over 15 years (possibly my worst ever) - a severe case of food poisoning. An illness that was directly caused by eating contaminated food from the Supermarket. Does that mean I'm going to stop eating? No it's not, because I believe the benefits of eating greatly outweigh the risks.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff

I'm recording these, because near miss situations are what we learn from in accident prevention. It's along the same lines of a special section of my diving log which I've kept over the last thirty or so years. That section is called "Special Problems and their Solutions." No dive is perfect; no bicycle trip is perfect either. If we track these problem situations, where they occur, how they occur, and what we can do about them, we can see trends. Once a trend develops, an accident is much more likely from that specific type of incident. Then preventive measures need to go into effect to keep that incident type from happening again.

Nobody is disputing that. However we need to make sure that the action we are taking is actually going to solve the problem in question. As someone who lives in the alcohol capital of Australia, I can say absolutely that only riding on bikepaths is not going to prevent a drunk driver from ploughing into you - just the same as a footpath didn't stop one from trying to drive through the house of a friend of mine.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
By the way, I just got word today that Oregon's Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed bills that strengthen both pedestrian rights (by forcing cars to stop and remain stopped while pedestrians are in a marked crosswalk), raising the stakes for drunk drivers. I haven't read the latter, but apparently Oregon will be getting much tougher on drunk drivers with this legislation.

Which merely goes to show that for all the negativity in this thread, change is possible. However, it won't happen while advocates continue to claim that "cycling is dangerous" and try to shift the blame onto the victim.

Now I'm done with this thread.

This is regarding little kids on bicycles. When I was coming home from work yesterday, a little girl, about 8 or 9 years old came racing down a side street, cutting across someone's property, over a dirt mound and smashed into my car, hitting my windshield. Thank goodness she wasn't killed, apparently just a broken collarbone. I was going 20 miles an hour, a truck and trailer was parked near the intersection (this is a quiet street) blocking part of both of our views. I didn't see her until she was a few feet away from me. I slammed on my brakes, closed my eyes and felt the impact. She almost came through the windshield. Someone came up to me and told me the brakes on her bike don't work. The kids on my street do this all the time and most of them don't wear helmets. I have even told the kids when I am riding my bike down the street to go put on their helmets, they just give me a dirty look or back talk. This accident was bound to happen to someone, I just happened to be the unlucky one. I just hope this opens up a few parents eyes as to what can happen to your kids when they are unsupervised. I don't know if anything will change. I'm hoping that the guy who owns the property that the kids cut across will put up a low fence so they kids can't cut across anymore. I hope some parents will decide to teach their kids some bike safely. It wasn't my fault but that doesn't make me feel any better about it.

Last February I suffered my worst illness in over 15 years (possibly my worst ever) - a severe case of food poisoning. Does that mean I'm going to stop eating?

I would hope that you are more careful about what and where you eat, though.

Same with bicycling - more careful about when and where you ride.

==============================================

This has been a most amazing and interesting thread.

1. I posted some personal thoughts about my own bicycling conclusions in relationship to Ken's death. Were they "right" or were they "wrong" conclusions? There is NO wrong or right abput personal values and personal conclusions. They are what they are.

I stated openly and honestly my reasons for my conclusions.

2. I NEVER, not once, asked anyone else to also join me in my conclusions. If you don't believe that, review what I said, not what others said I said.

3. I have been called a:

"troll"

"scare mongerer"

"fear mongerer"

I have been criticized for titling the thread about "Death, dying and bicycling" - a title that correctly identifies my original post - which is the purpose of a title, IMHO.

and other not so nice kinds of things in a veritable plethora of varied responses.

4. I kindly thanked all the forum members for their input.

5. I stated that all the writing about terrible drivers in this forum would never bring change (true). Please note - I did NOT say the forums were worthless or not of value - despite what some claim I said - I said that all the writing in the world about awful drivers on this forum would make no changes, unless there was an action plan to effect change. So. I guess there is some palliative value, but beyond that, what's the point in complaining to those who already share your views?

6. I offered some suggestions as to what kinds of actions - even a brief plan - about how to bring change. It involved some work and effort on the part of members of this forum. But, interestingly, no one took me up on that plan, which was thoroughly ignored in favor of more vituperative attacks upon me.

Are you guys all talk and no walk? When real effort is required you quickly retreat?

==========================

Now, why is this?

Why is a thread and statement about someone's personal conclusions so roundly and ferociously attacked?

My experience in life is that when people find someone else or their ideas threatening is when they react most violently. When they find a kernel of truth in their statements (incidentally, this is ONLY the internet - how in the world can I be threatening - ??) is when they react most intensely (and at times, nastily, I note iwth interest). Ahh, the power of words.

And so we come to the end (hopefully) of this thread.

Again, I plan on absolutely minimizing my exposure to danger.

I think the grossest thing is when someone suggested in a fashion that Ken Kifer died the way he wanted to.

Is that person kidding? Do they really think Ken would trade about 30 years of life expectancy to make some sort of esoteric point. Wow, what a conclusion.

I've got about 20-25 years left, if everything else goes well. I plan on not having a bike accident (or any other kind of accident that is preventable) shorten those years if there is any reasonable way it can be avoided.

Of course, I am not going to "live locked up in my living room" as someone told me to do. I enjoy life. I bike, hike, lift weights, sing in the choir, spend time with my children, work full-time. I want to continue doing those things, but in a safe manner.

So, disagree with me if you will. But please try to be civil and don't call me (or anyone else) names. It is very low-class.

And, give some thought as to why some of you react so intensely and in some cases so negatively, and is it because I do speak a bit of the truth that you might want to avoid?

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff death and dying both have something to teach us; Most of what bicycling is about is very healthy. Many have written about the benifits. These can be counterbalanced by bicycling's negatives, and injuries are one of those negatives.

What a load of hooey! The benefits are not "counterbalanced" by the negatives. The benefits are much greater than the negatives.

Now, as Ken said, there is no way we are going to eliminate all risks,but ,
Originally posted by Rich C. there's a line between accommodating your own fears and advocating that other people start sharing them.

It's abundantly clear , learned from experiance and study, that cycling provides a net benefit despite it's inherent risks!

Why, I would ask, is the solution to a problem, that the bicycle has nothing to do with, to restrict or reduce, bicycle use?

What is with this relationship with the automobile to be so strong as to not to restrict or reduce it's use when it's obvious that the problem is a direct result of it's misuse?

Originally posted by DnvrFox
I would hope that you are more careful about what and where you eat, though.

Same with bicycling - more careful about when and where you ride.


It's ironic that this should come up right now. Just last night a major bushfire started not far from here. I woke up with a sore throat from all the smoke covering the area. Perhaps I should be more careful about when and where I breathe? Fact is, one does not always have a choice in these matters.

It's the same with when and where I ride. It's all well and good to say "go and find a path that has no cars". Fact is, it won't get me to work on time. It's all well and good to try to advocate for more "facilities", but that simply is not going to happen when the urban environment means than multi-million dollar high-rise apartment blocks would need to be demolished to make the space.

For all that, I still find riding to work to be the safest way to get there. As I pointed out above, my bicycle has been very forgiving in all the crashes I've had on it, and apart from walking (not a realistic transportational option for all but the shortest trips), I don't believe any other method of transport would have been so safe.

As a consequence, I will cut my cloth accordingly and continue to campaign for greater enforcement of laws on the roads on which I ride. I will continue practices such as lane-claiming which make me visible to motorists and leave me space to back off when necessary, and I won't ride with the distracting thought of "I might not make it home tonight"

In closing, I apologise to Denver and all the others if my comments about some of the things posted in this thread caused offence. That honestly was not my intention. However, I do believe that the dangers of cycling in traffic are dramatically overstated, largely as a result of the extra publicity cyclist crashes get if there just happens to be a car involved.

OK, I promise to shut up now. :D

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Again, I plan on absolutely minimizing my exposure to danger
Me too. I think all of us are united on that point.

:)

Originally posted by DnvrFox
6. I offered some suggestions as to what kinds of actions - even a brief plan - about how to bring change. It involved some work and effort on the part of members of this forum. But, interestingly, no one took me up on that plan, which was thoroughly ignored in favor of more vituperative attacks upon me.

Are you guys all talk and no walk? When real effort is required you quickly retreat?



I didn't respond to that part of your posting because it seemed like a straw man.

Your posting about your fears is one thing, and it's your right to do so. I even praised you for your courage in being up front about your concerns.

But this is a *discussion* forum. If you post, you can expect responses, and you're implicitly inviting them. The title of the thread does more than identify the thread, it identifies the theme. The title and the content of your post made it clearly a thread about fear of getting killed while cycling. And that's a challenge to people who have invested a great deal of energy in their lives to countering that very fear in themselves, their families, their communities, in order to promote cycling.

The "straw man" is trying to redirect a debate to an issue that's tangential to the real issue, and then trying to make solving the tangential issue a condition of scoring in the real debate. In this case, the tangential issue is "making cycling safer." The real issue is the perception of fear vs. the reality of the threat.

Nobody can do anything in the present moment to make you feel safer. We can't wish bike paths into existence, or change driver behavior. So nothing anybody can say on those points will have any bearing on your feelings or beliefs... but you can toss off a self-righteous "are you guys all talk and no walk?" and exit feeling like you've scored some sort of debating point. Well, the debating judge says "bzzzt!"

You experience bike paths as being safe and vehicular cycling as being dangerous. So you think we should all be campaigning for bike paths and pray we don't get killed before they do.

You just don't seem to get that you are among a tiny, infinitesimal, statistically insignificant minority of US cyclists whose needs are actually served by their local paths. That retrofitting such paths to older cities, more densely built-up cities, sprawling suburban tracts, and most other areas is just not going to happen. And even if it did, they would *still* not serve the needs of most travelers, because it takes a grid to serve destinations and routes that exist in the first place because the grid was already there.

And you don't seem to get that millions of cyclists ride their bikes on the roads every day without problems, and that whenever anybody *does* try to analyze cyclist-fatality data intelligently -- that is, separating out the kids, the wrong-way cyclists, the night-riders-with-no-lights -- to determine how safe experienced and law-abiding cyclists really are, they find that cycling is much safer than driving.

But you know, Denver, "I'm scared and nothing you can say will make me feel safe" is really a pretty intractible position. If that's a fair assessment, then there's really no debate at all, is there? So why do you keep coming back to it?

RichC

Closetbiker said:
What a load of hooey! The benefits are not "counterbalanced" by the negatives. The benefits are much greater than the negatives.


Well, my thought is that the benefits of cycling are in the positive realm most often. But for those who experience a car first-hand, the net benefits may very well be in the negative realm. Cycling is very friendly to the environment, which is one reason I bike; it is beneficial to physical conditioning, and therefore should help mitigate the health problems of cardiovascular disease. This latter is a long-term benefit. But if in the short-term the bicyclist is killed, maimed, or otherwise disabled by an accident, for that bicyclist the net benefit is very negative. And there have been too many of these accidents happening. They are all preventable, but not all the measures of simply enforcing existing laws are adequate.

So if some think that I'm being over-cautious, so be it; I'll probably out-live them. I'm still getting good milage, and pretty good average speeds. But, I am determined not to put myself in a position of again ending up in a hospital, not remembering the last hour of my life, or worse.


ChrisL,

You forgot to comment on that one:D Seriously, it would be difficult for someone who has not gone through the experience to empathize with those of us who have. Many on this thread seem not to be especially interested in hearing of our experiences, only in promoting cycling as a very safe activity.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Seriously, it would be difficult for someone who has not gone through the experience to empathize with those of us who have. Many on this thread seem not to be especially interested in hearing of our experiences, only in promoting cycling as a very safe activity.

That's because anecdotal evidence is not meaningful. You can't say anything to make it so, except to yourself.

"I got hit by a car. It sucked. Try not to get hit by a car."

OK. Gotcha.

Now, how is that different from what I've been doing for the last 40 years?

RichC

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff if in the short-term the bicyclist is killed, maimed, or otherwise disabled by an accident, for that bicyclist the net benefit is very negative. And there have been too many of these accidents happening. They are all preventable, but not all the measures of simply enforcing existing laws are adequate.

How can you miss the point? Cyclists are killed, maimed, or otherwise disabled by accidents less than by other means of transportation. This has been proven by authorities with greater means than yours John. If you're more afraid of accidents on a bicycle than afraid of accidents walking or driving, that's too bad. I'm not.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there appears to have been a database issue with this thread. In short, the text I have attempted to post has ended up in John's post above, and it would seem much of John's text was lost (I managed to salvage some of it). In any case, my reply is below:

John, I think one has to distinguish between "very safe" and "totally safe". To promote something as "very safe" is not to say that it is totally without risk. However, the fact is that every human activity carries some form of risk. I have already pointed out that both eating and breathing carry a certain amount of risk. The mere act of being born carries a certain amount of risk.

I was not saying that cycling is totally without risk. I was saying that relative to many other activities, including ones that people take for granted every day, it carries little risk. That was my point. I have crashed on my bicycle a number of times, however I have yet to be hospitalised or have a broken bone. I do have scars to remind me that the activity is not without risk, but I stil make the point that it has been relatively forgiving, compared to what I could have expected from similar crashes in other modes of transport.

John, if you send me a PM containing whatever else you intended to post there, I can fix your post manually.

Last February I suffered my worst illness in over 15 years (possibly my worst ever) - a severe case of food poisoning. Does that mean I'm going to stop eating?

Hey Nugget!

For the record, please don't stop eating... you get any skinnier, when you turn sideways, you'll disappear, so no one will see you! ;)

When Ken died, the next day, I was out on my bike. At first, I couldn't stop dwelling on his death while I was riding, and I spent quite a bit of time concerned for my own safety. Then at some point, the love of riding kind of got in the way of that, and I ended up having a great ride, although I did feel sad for Ken's passing.

I have to say, with the media highlighting the deaths of celebrities recently, and with the passing of Ken, and even with one of my own friend's deaths (the anniversary of that death is approaching), I've thought a lot about dying. I don't think cycling is dangerous by any sense- it's the drivers who are dangerous and creating the imminent threat of danger to cyclists. Having said that, I don't know how I'm going to die, but however it happens, I just want to be able to go to the grave knowing that I lived my life as fully as possible, I was happy, I was loved, and I loved in return. Something in me tells me I'm not going to live to be the ripe old age of 90, but something else in me tells me that however my life ends, I'm going to have no regrets when that time comes. Maybe I'll get hit on my bike, maybe my plane will fall from the sky, maybe I'll ride over a land mine in Cambodia and get blown to bits, or maybe I'll just fall off a cliff while hiking and snap my neck... who knows?

Why kill yourself worrying about something that we really have no control over? Our destiny is our destiny, and we don't know what it is, but we can control what's happening with our lives in the present, and work to change our lives and the lives of the people around us. We can join advocacy groups that lobby for acceptance of cycling on the roads, we can encourage other people to ride so that there are so many people on the roads that cars can't help but notice our presence and take more precautions to avoid hitting us. We can lobby our aldermen, congressmen, etc. for better laws for cycling.... the list goes on and on. We're all going to go sometime, and it's better to go knowing you've made an impact on the world around you for the better, just like Ken Kifer did.

I say let's not fight anymore- kiss and make up, and let's take all this energy and do something positive to impact the people around us and the society that we live in.

Koffee

It looks like I was able to "fix" the post I made above. Thanks, Chris, for telling me about it.

You who did comment on it may wish to take another look, as it does have more info than was there before. It may put a better perspective onto my points too.

I don't have time tonight, with all the fixin' going on, to develop the point I was going to make. I'll wait until later, but it deals with perceptions of safety. This is as important as the reality, and may shed some light on why we are having problems getting more people to commute to work, or to stores, by bicycle.

John

Well, personally, I don't think that Denver Fox has been scaremongering or being a troll in this discussion.

Denver Fox has apparantly been shocked and dismayed by the recent unfortunate death of Ken Kifer. Fox has decided that if it can happen to Ken, it can happen to him so Fox has decided to take action and ride on trails henceforward. As a personal decision, that one is hard to fault. I mean we each have to make decisions that we can live with. If that is Fox's decision, I can respect that.

Of course, I don't agree with the reasoning. Personally, I have seen data that suggests that bicycle trails are more dangerous then riding on the roads. My personal experience locally supports this one. I have also seen data that suggests that bicycling is safer per hour then driving a motorized vehicle. I have ridden quite a few miles, well over 100,000, and I have yet to have a mishap with a motorized vehicle. So I do not see motorized vehicles as the great danger that Fox does.

Even knowing all of this. There are roads I avoid. I just do not enjoy riding with a constant stream of vehicles passing by my left elbow. It doesn't scare me but I don't enjoy it either. So I avoid generally avoid those roads. I suppose that Fox is just doing me one better by avoiding all roads. It is his choice afterall.

Interesting discussion. The following article makes it even more so; some sad, scary food for thought - right in Denver's back yard:

Man killed in collision cycled for his health
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News
October 13, 2003

LITTLETON - Thomas Fox had taken up bicycling after a mild heart attack three years ago.

On his ride Friday afternoon, the 60-year-old Ken Caryl Ranch accountant was killed after a crash with another bicyclist along the Mary Carter Greenway Trail near Prince Street.

"I just couldn't believe it," said his wife, Betty Fox. "He was bicycling for his health. But if he was to die, that was not a bad way to go."

Fox was riding north behind two other cyclists as he was approaching the underpass for Prince Street.

A southbound cyclist, a 35-year- old man who was not identified by police, crashed into Fox on a blind curve. Fox was pronounced dead at the scene. Autopsy results were pending Monday.

Both cyclists wore helmets. It was not known if speed was a factor.

Littleton police said no charges are expected in the accident.

Monday, Fox's family was still finalizing memorial services.

"He had Minnesota values," said his wife. "He was very honest, very straightforward and kind."

Fox met his Colorado wife while he was in the military, and they married in Fort Collins.

"I grew up here, and I taught him how to ski," said Betty Fox. "He really liked the mountains, and he liked the things you could do outdoors here. So he stayed."

He earned a master's degree in business administration at the University of Denver in 1973. He worked as an accountant with Deloitte, Haskins and Sells.

Thomas Fox worked for a number of oil and gas firms in Denver from 1979 to 1992 then moved to Durango in 1993, where he worked as a financial officer with Community Connections, a group that works with developmentally disabled people.

It was in Durango that he started taking up mountain biking.

"He just really loved sports," said his wife. "He skied, he rode bikes and he played pickup tennis."

In 1999, he became the chief financial officer for The Developmental Disability Resource Center in Jefferson County and moved to Ken Caryl Ranch.

Three years ago, he had a mild heart attack . After that scare, he started taking better care of himself, his wife said. "He took his diet more seriously and he got his fitness up." Fox had been bicycling for an hour or two three times a week. "He liked to ride fast, but he was careful," Betty Fox said.

She and some friends have approached the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District about having a bench along the Mary Carter Greenway Trail dedicated to her husband.

"It's a wonderful trail, and it's been such a joy for all of us," she said.

In addition to his wife, Thomas Fox is survived by a son, Charlie, of Denver; and a sister, Karen, of Plymouth, Minn.

Instead of taking all the bikes off the roads, why not put twice, ten times, fifty times as many? So the cars won't be able to go 500 feet without seeing and having to deal with a bike? So people will stop thinking bikes are blocking traffic and see them as traffic?

Segregation is not the answer! Only repeated, face-to-face interaction can kill stereotypes. Make the interactions pleasant if possible, but stand up for yourself if necessary. Like so many things in life, there is only conflict here because people see it that way.


Darn!!!!! we were going sooooo good, and you had to throw logic in. I think this would be the best way to solve the problem.

As many here know, I have had several (three) run-ins with vehicles in my bicycling career. About a year and a half ago, I had my last one, and said that if I had one more incident/accident that was caused by riding an upright bicycle, I'd get a recumbant. Well, last summer my front wheel got stuck in a walkway on a bicycle path with parallel cracks between boards that were just wide enough to grab my front wheel. I was going slowly, about 8 mph, but still could not keep from taking a header. That week, I put money down on a Rans Stratus bicycle I had been checking out for over a year. I had to go to the hospital to get my hip drained after the skin was pulled away from the muscle in my accident, every week or two for two months, and stopped by the LBS to try different models. While I do ride some trails to stay away from cars at certain points in my commute, I feel that riding a recumbant helps immensely in the following ways:

--Better visibility of the roadway and surroundings.
--Lower to the ground, so less distance to fall.
--Traveling feet-forward, not head forward.

If you'll go to the Recumbant Forum, you'll see my posting on trying to convince my wife about a recumbant bicycle. There are many good reasons for using a recumbant, and safety is high on the list. I picked up my Rans Stratus about three weeks ago, and have been riding it 4 days a week ever since on my commute to work. I still don't ride on Fridays, as both my recent run-ins with autos were on Fridays. That's one other measure I've taken.

John

Interesting discussion. The following article makes it even more so; some sad, scary food for thought - right in Denver's back yard:

[FONT=Courier New]Man killed in collision cycled for his health
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News
October 13, 2003

Old news. There was a discussion on this a couple of months ago when that happened.