Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

If you cycle or walk in America, the fatality stats are not just your imagination.

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

If you cycle or walk in America, the fatality stats are not just your imagination.

Old 01-06-23, 06:56 AM
  #51  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
The ratio of cars and car-accessible roads to cyclists and pedestrians is very different between the US and Europe. A lot of behavior comes from exposure - if bikes seem like a rare oddity on most roads in the US, drivers aren't going to look for them or respect the dangers attached to them.

There are many roads in Europe where you can't even drive a car, and almost none in the US. Bicycle commuting is extremely common in much of Europe, relatively low density even in big US cities.

You can't talk about attitudes and behavior while ignoring the actual structural differences. Regardless of how many additional bikes are on US roads, it is still not the same level as Europe.
Gee, are you saying infrastructure matters? Weren't you the one that was saying that this was only about what's happened since 2020?

Yes, things in the US are structured for the convenience of drivers over pedestrian and cyclists. Film at 11.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 07:58 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Gee, are you saying infrastructure matters? Weren't you the one that was saying that this was only about what's happened since 2020?

Yes, things in the US are structured for the convenience of drivers over pedestrian and cyclists. Film at 11.
Gee, you really have trouble understanding stuff, eh?

The initial article emphasized the major difference between the direction in stats in the US and Europe during COVID. I replied to that. I didn't insist that there was no difference previously.

And I'm not talking about the difference in designed infrastructure between the US and Europe, but the fact that many parts of Europe you simply can't drive a car because there is no room to do so. Old cities, narrow roads, no room to park. Those places only allow for walking or cycling, and that greatly increases the number of cyclists that everyone has to deal with.

The US could quadruple bike lanes tomorrow, but the number of cyclists that everyone else would see and be aware of would not change much. The wide open spaces, modern layout of our cities and a lack of need to cycle would keep the numbers low. The average US commute distance is 41 miles a day, round trip, because we have a suburban housing model. Only the most ardent commuters are going to ride that far on a daily basis - regardless of whether there is a special lane or trail available. Add to that much more severe weather in much of the US with colder/snowier winters and hotter summers than much of the Gulf Stream.

So exposure to cyclists is always going to be relatively low - especially in parts of the country that are very rural or have long average commutes. Drivers just aren't thinking about the bikes that they hardly ever see.

Last edited by Kontact; 01-06-23 at 08:01 AM.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 08:24 AM
  #53  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Gee, you really have trouble understanding stuff, eh?

The initial article emphasized the major difference between the direction in stats in the US and Europe during COVID. I replied to that. I didn't insist that there was no difference previously.

And I'm not talking about the difference in designed infrastructure between the US and Europe, but the fact that many parts of Europe you simply can't drive a car because there is no room to do so. Old cities, narrow roads, no room to park. Those places only allow for walking or cycling, and that greatly increases the number of cyclists that everyone has to deal with.

The US could quadruple bike lanes tomorrow, but the number of cyclists that everyone else would see and be aware of would not change much. The wide open spaces, modern layout of our cities and a lack of need to cycle would keep the numbers low. The average US commute distance is 41 miles a day, round trip because we have a suburban housing model. Only the most ardent commuters are going to ride that far on a daily basis - regardless of whether there is a special lane or trail available.

So exposure to cyclists is always going to be relatively low - especially in parts of the country that are very rural or have long average commutes. Drivers just aren't thinking about the bikes that they hardly ever see.
If you thought that the OP article was not about how this is a continuing trend that went through COVID involving systematic differences between US infrastructure and European, it's not me who's having the comprehension problems. The article was also about more than just cycling and commuting, it's also about the dangers of being a pedestrian.

You seem to be arguing with a point that literally no one is making. You do so in a manner that, if anything, actually understates the differences between Europe and the US. And your point about commute distances is completely consistent with y main point, which is that the US infrastructure has overwhelmingly been constructed for the convenience of drivers over pretty much every other consideration. The US is an outlier in this regard, you're just identifying one of the major reasons.

You really don't understand that roads ARE infrastructure? Europeans also do a lot more of their commuting by public transportation (also infrastructure). I also think we haven't seen the end of the rise of telecommuting and remote work. Obviously, there's some retrenchment from that since the lockdowns, but it is being used increasingly as a perc to attract employees. But no, we are not likely to see car-free roads permeating through the U.S. The closest equivalent is MUPs like the Minuteman through several of the Boston suburbs, and those do get trafficked, but they aren't anywhere near the network you'd see in much of Europe.

So given that the US infrastructure is not going to change drastically in the next few years, it is rational for us to approach this as an individual safety problem. That approach, however, can only have limited effectiveness, and shouldn't preclude thinking about and advocating for reforms that can happen within the current crappy framework we have.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 08:44 AM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
If you thought that the OP article was not about how this is a continuing trend that went through COVID involving systematic differences between US infrastructure and European, it's not me who's having the comprehension problems. The article was also about more than just cycling and commuting, it's also about the dangers of being a pedestrian.

You seem to be arguing with a point that literally no one is making. You do so in a manner that, if anything, actually understates the differences between Europe and the US. And your point about commute distances is completely consistent with y main point, which is that the US infrastructure has overwhelmingly been constructed for the convenience of drivers over pretty much every other consideration. The US is an outlier in this regard, you're just identifying one of the major reasons.

You really don't understand that roads ARE infrastructure? Europeans also do a lot more of their commuting by public transportation (also infrastructure). I also think we haven't seen the end of the rise of telecommuting and remote work. Obviously, there's some retrenchment from that since the lockdowns, but it is being used increasingly as a perc to attract employees. But no, we are not likely to see car-free roads permeating through the U.S. The closest equivalent is MUPs like the Minuteman through several of the Boston suburbs, and those do get trafficked, but they aren't anywhere near the network you'd see in much of Europe.

So given that the US infrastructure is not going to change drastically in the next few years, it is rational for us to approach this as an individual safety problem. That approach, however, can only have limited effectiveness, and shouldn't preclude thinking about and advocating for reforms that can happen within the current crappy framework we have.
You are talking to me like we've been having some sort of discussion. I have no idea who you are.

And I didn't say the article was only about one thing, I said the article appears to focus first on the most recent part of a larger trend. And that first portion of the article is what I initially decided to write about. That's my decision - not yours. Tough if you don't like that.


Major cities were designed in the US with wide streets and grid structures long before cars. Many European cities were designed around the need to defend themselves against medieval armies. There really is no comparison - and neither were designed for or against cars. Throwing the word "infrastructure" at that difference doesn't clarify anything - Europe's inability to accommodate cars and shorter commute distances aren't by design to favor pedestrians and cyclists. They are structural restrictions that citizens have to deal with. Add to it that the US is an oil producing country and the relative attractiveness of different transportation modes gets more stark.

Personally, I have commuted in many US cities by bike, and never found it to be particularly difficult or especially dangerous. I suspect that the cyclist casualty rate in the US is high when compared to the population size, but relatively low compared to the number of car miles driven. But that doesn't fit with the mindset of angry people like yourself that are itching to fight with anyone they think isn't toting the party line.

I hope you've scored whatever points you think will make you more popular on this subforum, but you just sound like an angry knob. I'm not making an argument with anyone - you are.

Last edited by Kontact; 01-06-23 at 08:48 AM.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 10:28 AM
  #55  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Your OP is about what happened since 2020. Then you follow it up with articles about change over 30 years. Those are separate things. The US didn't make any traffic infrastructure changes in the last two years.
Originally Posted by Kontact
Ah, yup:

This American exception became even starker during the pandemic. In 2020, as car travel plummeted around the world, traffic fatalities broadly fell as well. But in the U.S., the opposite happened. Travel declined, and deaths still went up. Preliminary federal data suggests road fatalities rose again in 2021.
Originally Posted by Kontact
That's fine, because blindly posting articles that aren't pertinent to my post is not a response. A bot can do that.
Originally Posted by Kontact
You are talking to me like we've been having some sort of discussion. I have no idea who you are.

And I didn't say the article was only about one thing, I said the article appears to focus first on the most recent part of a larger trend. And that first portion of the article is what I initially decided to write about. That's my decision - not yours. Tough if you don't like that.


Major cities were designed in the US with wide streets and grid structures long before cars. Many European cities were designed around the need to defend themselves against medieval armies. There really is no comparison - and neither were designed for or against cars. Throwing the word "infrastructure" at that difference doesn't clarify anything - Europe's inability to accommodate cars and shorter commute distances aren't by design to favor pedestrians and cyclists. They are structural restrictions that citizens have to deal with. Add to it that the US is an oil producing country and the relative attractiveness of different transportation modes gets more stark.

Personally, I have commuted in many US cities by bike, and never found it to be particularly difficult or especially dangerous. I suspect that the cyclist casualty rate in the US is high when compared to the population size, but relatively low compared to the number of car miles driven. But that doesn't fit with the mindset of angry people like yourself that are itching to fight with anyone they think isn't toting the party line.

I hope you've scored whatever points you think will make you more popular on this subforum, but you just sound like an angry knob. I'm not making an argument with anyone - you are.
Well, now you're just lying about saying the OP was about one thing. See above.

I really can't take you seriously if you're going to pretend that the urban renewal and development of the interstate highway system of the 1950s and 1960s didn't make US cities more car-centric, and just coincidentally happened at the same time of the rapid growth of the suburbs. Those were accompanied by systematic degradation of mass transit in the US. I don't know what your agenda is in pretending these weren't policy choices, but don't expect anyone to play along.
Also, many European cities and infrastructure had to basically be completely rebuilt after WW II. Do you honestly think that the mass transit systems, pedestrian/bicycle friendly cities etc. of Europe, just happened by accident?

Policy matters, it has to be implemented in a context, yes, but you're wildly overstating how much of this was determined by medieval war structures.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 11:25 AM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Well, now you're just lying about saying the OP was about one thing. See above.

I really can't take you seriously if you're going to pretend that the urban renewal and development of the interstate highway system of the 1950s and 1960s didn't make US cities more car-centric, and just coincidentally happened at the same time of the rapid growth of the suburbs. Those were accompanied by systematic degradation of mass transit in the US. I don't know what your agenda is in pretending these weren't policy choices, but don't expect anyone to play along.
Also, many European cities and infrastructure had to basically be completely rebuilt after WW II. Do you honestly think that the mass transit systems, pedestrian/bicycle friendly cities etc. of Europe, just happened by accident?

Policy matters, it has to be implemented in a context, yes, but you're wildly overstating how much of this was determined by medieval war structures.
As I alluded with references to oil, commuting distances and climate, comparing the US and Europe directly is absurd.

It isnt one thing, like infrastructure policy, it's everything. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with what you'd like to think are my politics. And you're wrong.

But foolish assumptions are the bread and butter of argumentative forum bullies
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 11:59 AM
  #57  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,227

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Liked 1,750 Times in 997 Posts
Kontact
Major cities were designed in the US with wide streets and grid structures long before cars.



To quote this guy in another video:
"Main Street wasn't built for the car. Main Street was bulldozed for the car."

Here is the Alan Fisher video he referenced about Pitman which is/was moreorless typical of US cities before the automobile industry forced us along the current path of limited options and product dependency.

You don't need to be obtuse. The stats & article in the original post have been a long time in the making. Defending establishment for establishments sake because you don't know any better or inventing frames where you "could be right; If only...!" exposes your ignorance.

It's ok to learn new things.
__________________
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.

Car dependency is a tax.
base2 is offline  
Likes For base2:
Old 01-06-23, 01:41 PM
  #58  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
As I alluded with references to oil, commuting distances and climate, comparing the US and Europe directly is absurd.

It isnt one thing, like infrastructure policy, it's everything. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with what you'd like to think are my politics. And you're wrong.

But foolish assumptions are the bread and butter of argumentative forum bullies
You came into this thread telling the OP repeatedly that he didn't know what the OP he had written was about and you're calling me the "forum bully"?

You have such a persecution complex, geez. I didn't "assume" anything, I quoted it in black and white and I said clearly I have no idea what your agenda is. You just keep making absurd statements like "neither were designed for or against cars", when it was explicitly clear and overt in the US that our urban areas and infrastructure were being redesigned and expanded on this basis for decades. You're talking about an era of "urban planning" when whole neighborhoods were being leveled and/or divided to make way for interstates and parking lots/structures. I just don't like it when people make up phony baloney history that weirdly ignores the internal combustion revolution. Seriously, do you think the average commute would be as distant as it is if automobile driving hadn't been privileged? Housing patterns didn't cause high reliance on cars in the US, reliance on cars changed housing patterns. A passing understanding if post-war mid 20th century history would have told you that.

And I'm sorry, but saying you can't directly compare countries because they're different is rather silly. On this, you're not even wrong. Trying to figure out which of those differences matter and whether there are any lessons to be drawn from those differences that may have any usefulness is exactly why such comparisons are made.


If you're happy with the way things are, fine. But don't come in here with a bunch of fake erudition and think we're going to bowled over by it.

And I hate to break it to you, but if I'm following a party line, good luck identifying which party. Most of my views are as popular as syphilis around here.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 01-06-23, 02:53 PM
  #59  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
You came into this thread telling the OP repeatedly that he didn't know what the OP he had written was about and you're calling me the "forum bully"?

You have such a persecution complex, geez. I didn't "assume" anything, I quoted it in black and white and I said clearly I have no idea what your agenda is. You just keep making absurd statements like "neither were designed for or against cars", when it was explicitly clear and overt in the US that our urban areas and infrastructure were being redesigned and expanded on this basis for decades. You're talking about an era of "urban planning" when whole neighborhoods were being leveled and/or divided to make way for interstates and parking lots/structures. I just don't like it when people make up phony baloney history that weirdly ignores the internal combustion revolution. Seriously, do you think the average commute would be as distant as it is if automobile driving hadn't been privileged? Housing patterns didn't cause high reliance on cars in the US, reliance on cars changed housing patterns. A passing understanding if post-war mid 20th century history would have told you that.

And I'm sorry, but saying you can't directly compare countries because they're different is rather silly. On this, you're not even wrong. Trying to figure out which of those differences matter and whether there are any lessons to be drawn from those differences that may have any usefulness is exactly why such comparisons are made.


If you're happy with the way things are, fine. But don't come in here with a bunch of fake erudition and think we're going to bowled over by it.

And I hate to break it to you, but if I'm following a party line, good luck identifying which party. Most of my views are as popular as syphilis around here.
All I've experienced in this thread is that makjng relatively simple observations licenses the kooks to be rude. It doesnt even make sense why you and 3alarm are acting like this. I don't have an agenda, so it is bizarre why you two react like you're combatting one. That's your "politics".
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 04:56 PM
  #60  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
All I've experienced in this thread is that makjng relatively simple observations licenses the kooks to be rude. It doesnt even make sense why you and 3alarm are acting like this. I don't have an agenda, so it is bizarre why you two react like you're combatting one. That's your "politics".

You are the one being rude and accusing people of having an agenda. All I've done is point out you're factually quite wrong about a lot of things, contradicting yourself, and that you have been nasty to people pointlessly throughout this thread. I thought it was especially ironic that you first told the op he was acting like a bot when he was insisting that the discussion was about a lot more than the trends during the lockdown, then lecture the same guy about some of the supposedly systematic differences between Europe and the US.

Please review your own postings and see who is the one calling people names. You have done so to several people.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-06-23, 06:45 PM
  #61  
Along for the ride
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: PNW US
Posts: 249
Liked 223 Times in 114 Posts
Good Lord, this forum is tiring. I'm new here as a participant after having used the site as an information resource for a long time. Wish you guys could see the culture of this place from an outsider's perspective - incredible how predictable it is here that small disagreements will continue, and continue, and continue, because people can't let someone else have the last word.

ANNNNYYYwayy...

Originally Posted by base2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

To quote this guy in another video:
"Main Street wasn't built for the car. Main Street was bulldozed for the car."
Great video, thanks for posting it. Frustrating that we've let this happen.
retswerb is offline  
Likes For retswerb:
Old 01-07-23, 07:36 AM
  #62  
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,612

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Liked 9,099 Times in 5,054 Posts
Originally Posted by retswerb
Good Lord, this forum is tiring. I'm new here as a participant after having used the site as an information resource for a long time. Wish you guys could see the culture of this place from an outsider's perspective - incredible how predictable it is here that small disagreements will continue, and continue, and continue, because people can't let someone else have the last word.

ANNNNYYYwayy...



Great video, thanks for posting it. Frustrating that we've let this happen.

I agree that base2 posting those videos was good. The reason I have been so vehement here is that it's obvious that some of the issues leading to our higher rate of automobile-caused deaths are likely intractable in any reasonable time scale, while others are possibly addressable through some relatively minor policy fixes. It's easy to.make up a policy-free fictional history that suggests that the differences are accidental and somehow inevitable, but these rates having multiple causes suggests that partial measures can have some meaningful effect in narrowing the gap between US deaths and other countries. Simple things like encouraging smaller vehicles and lower speeds, along with copying some of the vehicle design regulations of the Europeans do not require major redesign of our cities, suburbs and infrastructure. Yes, they may not reduce the number of people being hit, but they could reduce the severity of injury when they were.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 01:54 PM
  #63  
Cop Magnet
 
JW Fas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 339
Liked 283 Times in 133 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Simple things like encouraging smaller vehicles and lower speeds,
As much as I like the idea of BEVs, their heavier weights and instant torque will only exacerbate the existing situation. Realistically, I think the only motivation to move away from large vehicles or to become a less car-centric society will be economics. With housing costs occupying a greater percentage of people's incomes and automobile ownership costs recently outpacing normal inflation, the desire to adopt cheaper forms of transport and/or more public transport may be in the not too distant future.
JW Fas is offline  
Likes For JW Fas:
Old 01-07-23, 03:29 PM
  #64  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
All I've experienced in this thread is that makjng relatively simple observations licenses the kooks to be rude. It doesnt even make sense why you and 3alarm are acting like this. I don't have an agenda, so it is bizarre why you two react like you're combatting one. That's your "politics".
...I missed this, because I've been ignoring this thread since it went south for the winter. I can only speak for myself, but I simply posted a relatively extensive pinion piece from the NY Times that speaks to a lot of my own observations on how many bike fatality items I see posted in my local news. I don't intentionally look for them, or I'd probably stop riding. But they are definitely there.

I don't think it's bizarre that I simply stopped responding to you, when your initial entry into the thread ignored the majority of the data sets included by the Times author, as well as the links on things like bigger cars and SUV/truck things, in favor of some smaller portion of it about the Covid years . The data sets go all the way back to 1995, and there's a clear beginning to the rise in fatality stats here in America. Sometime around 2013 0r 2014, in America we started going back up in fatalities, and we've been diverging from the rest of the first world straight through 2022.

After responding to two or three of those, I quickly concluded you either did not read the article (maybe you lack access to the Times ?), or did not care to read and digest it, to focus on the points it makes. Anyway, here's another link, since someone brought up BEV's. It also makes some salient points about size and weight, and the way cars and trucks are marketed in the US that adds to this already significant problem. It's a cross post from another thread, on electric cars in the P+R.

Electric Vehicles Are Bringing Out the Worst in Us

“Once you’ve experienced an [electric vehicle] and all it has to offer—the torque, handling, performance, capability—you’re in.”

The pitch is enticing, but it raises a few questions. Is the electric F-150 Lightning “better” than the conventional F-150 if its added weight and size deepen the country’s road-safety crisis? And how, exactly, are electric-vehicle drivers going to use the extra power that companies are handing them?

Converting the transportation system from fossil fuels to electricity is essential to addressing climate change. But automakers’ focus on large, battery-powered SUVs and trucks reinforces a destructive American desire to drive something bigger, faster, and heavier than everyone else.

In many ways, EVs reflect long-standing weaknesses in the design and regulation of American automobiles. For decades, the car industry has exploited a loophole in federal fuel-economy rules to replace sedans with more profitable SUVs and trucks, which now account for four in five new cars sold in the United States.
...


This shift toward ever-larger trucks and SUVs has endangered everyone not inside of one, especially those unprotected by tons of metal. A recent study linked the growing popularity of SUVs in the United States to the surging number of pedestrian deaths, which reached a 40-year high in 2021. A particular problem is that the height of these vehicles expands their blind spots. In a segment this summer, a Washington, D.C., television news channel sat nine children in a line in front of an SUV; the driver could see none of them, because nothing within 16 feet of the front of the vehicle was visible to her.

Few car shoppers seem to care. For decades, Americans have shown little inclination to consider how their vehicle affects the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, or other motorists. (The federal government seems similarly uninterested; the national crash-test-ratings program evaluates only the risk to a car’s occupants.)

As large as gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks are, their electrified versions are even heftier due to the addition of huge batteries. The forthcoming electric Chevrolet Silverado EV, for example, will weigh about 8,000 pounds, 3,000 more than the current gas-powered version.

There's another link in there, to an extensive article in the Atlantic, on how this market trend is killing more people, but the Atlantic is another subscription magazine, and I'm not sure if you can get access to it either. It's here: The government can no longer allow the auto industry to treat walkers and bikers like collateral damage.
After a decade of steady increases, the newest Ford F-250—part of Ford’s F-Series of pickups, the No. 1 selling vehicle model in America—measures some 55 inches tall at the hood. That’s “as tall as the roof of some sedans,” a Consumer Reports writer remarked in a recent analysis examining the mega-truck trend. This height would easily render someone in a wheelchair, or a child, totally invisible at close range. If I, a tallish woman at 5 foot 6, were hit by a new F-250, I would be struck above the chest. The face, head, neck: These are not great places to suffer a forceful blow—like the kind that an up-to-7,500-pound F-250 can deliver.
...
European and Japanese regulators have for many years imposed pedestrian-safety standards on automakers, leading to innovations like the active hood (a little airbag-type of cushioning for a car’s hood). American regulators, however, have been slow to think beyond the driver’s seat.

This helps explain why passenger and driver deaths have remained mostly stable over the past decade while pedestrian fatalities have risen by about 50 percent. From 2019 to 2020, pedestrian deaths per vehicle miles traveled increased a record 21 percent, for a total of 6,721 fatalities. This astonishing death toll has multiple causes, but the scale of the front end of many pickup trucks and SUVs is part of the problem, and that’s been obvious for quite a while.
...
In 2003, a study found that SUVs were three times more likely than sedans to kill pedestrians when they struck them. Leg injuries are dreadful, but “serious head and chest injuries can actually kill you,” the injury-biomechanics professor Clay Gabler told the Detroit Free Press in 2018.
...


The late consumer advocate Clarence Ditlow called pedestrian protection “one of the last frontiers in vehicle safety,” and added that the industry was reluctant to address it, “because it relates so closely with styling.”

Meanwhile, the hyperaggressive macho-truck trend has been enormously profitable for the auto industry—particularly the Detroit-based Big Three. Profits are as high as $17,000 on a Chevy Silverado. Crossover SUVs sell at a $10–$15,000 markup over the sedans they were based on, according to Automotive News, even though they cost a similar amount to make.
On the personal anecdote side, I once took a class from Mr Ditlow, while at the U of Maryland. He was still working for Nader and PIRG at the time. It was a long time ago, and it was interesting in a lot of ways. It was in that class I finally learned the definitive answer to why Nader went after GM and the Corvair, rather than Volkswagon, which sold a much more dangerous car, responsible for many more crash deaths and injuries. And don't even get me started on VW busses of that era. But those were mostly killing the drivers and passengers who rode in them.
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 01-07-23, 03:49 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
And I'm not talking about the difference in designed infrastructure between the US and Europe, but the fact that many parts of Europe you simply can't drive a car because there is no room to do so. Old cities, narrow roads, no room to park. Those places only allow for walking or cycling, and that greatly increases the number of cyclists that everyone has to deal with.
...have you ever lived in Europe ? I spent a year living in Naples, and drove frequently from there to Rome. I drove extensively in both cities, because I had a fun little Alfa Duetto. My experience in Italy runs counter to what you have expressed above.

Originally Posted by Kontact
Only the most ardent commuters are going to ride that far on a daily basis - regardless of whether there is a special lane or trail available. Add to that much more severe weather in much of the US with colder/snowier winters and hotter summers than much of the Gulf Stream.
...the Dutch have some of the crummiest winter weather I've ever experienced, situated where they are, yet bicycle use is relatively high. I'm not sure your weather observations are a good place to hang your hat.

Originally Posted by Kontact
So exposure to cyclists is always going to be relatively low - especially in parts of the country that are very rural or have long average commutes. Drivers just aren't thinking about the bikes that they hardly ever see.
...if you want to talk about the long distances driven by rural inhabitants in the US, you probably need to start another thread. I'm not prepared to presume that people living 20 or 30 miles from the city limits are suddenly going to embrace bike commuting. It's a real problem in discussions like this, when people (you, in this case) start tossing in stuff that is not relevant to the discussion. It's factual, there's no denying it. But it lacks merit in the context of the original discussion. Those people are an outlier, for out purposes here.

Originally Posted by Kontact

Personally, I have commuted in many US cities by bike, and never found it to be particularly difficult or especially dangerous. I suspect that the cyclist casualty rate in the US is high when compared to the population size, but relatively low compared to the number of car miles driven. But that doesn't fit with the mindset of angry people like yourself that are itching to fight with anyone they think isn't toting the party line.
.
...I'll go back to not responding to you now. I don't want to come off as "angry", and there's no way to respond to this statement without the appearance of disrespect. I'll just tote my party line along as I go.
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 01-07-23, 06:41 PM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
I don't think it's bizarre that I simply stopped responding to you, when your initial entry into the thread ignored the majority of the data sets included by the Times author, as well as the links on things like bigger cars and SUV/truck things, in favor of some smaller portion of it about the Covid years . The data sets go all the way back to 1995, and there's a clear beginning to the rise in fatality stats here in America. Sometime around 2013 0r 2014, in America we started going back up in fatalities, and we've been diverging from the rest of the first world straight through 2022.

After responding to two or three of those, I quickly concluded you either did not read the article (maybe you lack access to the Times ?), or did not care to read and digest it, to focus on the points it makes. Anyway, here's another link, since someone brought up BEV's. It also makes some salient points about size and weight, and the way cars and trucks are marketed in the US that adds to this already significant problem. It's a cross post from another thread, on electric cars in the P+R.
No one said it is bizarre that you stopped responding. Where did you get that idea?

My initial post didn't "ignore" anything. I chose to respond to a portion of it, not as a negation of the rest or of the theme in general. Pointing out that Covid changed driving and biking in the US in a way different from Europe doesn't mean that I'm in denial the other points the article makes, or even that I disagree in general. So you're response as if I was arguing with the article and failing to even acknowledge the fact that there was a cycling and motor camping surge between 2020 and 2022 comes off as passive aggressive.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 06:50 PM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...have you ever lived in Europe ? I spent a year living in Naples, and drove frequently from there to Rome. I drove extensively in both cities, because I had a fun little Alfa Duetto. My experience in Italy runs counter to what you have expressed above.



...the Dutch have some of the crummiest winter weather I've ever experienced, situated where they are, yet bicycle use is relatively high. I'm not sure your weather observations are a good place to hang your hat.



...if you want to talk about the long distances driven by rural inhabitants in the US, you probably need to start another thread. I'm not prepared to presume that people living 20 or 30 miles from the city limits are suddenly going to embrace bike commuting. It's a real problem in discussions like this, when people (you, in this case) start tossing in stuff that is not relevant to the discussion. It's factual, there's no denying it. But it lacks merit in the context of the original discussion. Those people are an outlier, for out purposes here.



...I'll go back to not responding to you now. I don't want to come off as "angry", and there's no way to respond to this statement without the appearance of disrespect. I'll just tote my party line along as I go.
I also lived in Naples, and saw little to no city cycling. But I wasn't suggesting that Europe has a homogenous cycling/driving culture. Germany has some of the best freeways in the world! But clearly the old cities, with their tiny streets, cause people to think about pedestrians and other non-auto people in the streets with an awareness that our much more segregated urban sidewalk system requires.

The Dutch get 2 inches of snow a year and there are virtually no hills. Chicago gets 37. Yes, the Netherlands have mild winters. It sounds much easier than living in Seattle.

The average distance people commute has everything to the point I was making about driving culture and exposure to peds and cyclists. You may want to separate it because it doesn't make whatever point you want it to, but it is exactly what I've been getting at - people learn to deal with the things that are most relevant to their daily driving. Encountering cyclists and walkers is less common in the US per mile driven. In fact, I'll bet that the US is safer for peds and cyclists per car mile.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:07 PM
  #68  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
All I've experienced in this thread is that makjng relatively simple observations licenses the kooks to be rude. It doesnt even make sense why you and 3alarm are acting like this. I don't have an agenda, so it is bizarre why you two react like you're combatting one. That's your "politics".
Originally Posted by Kontact
No one said it is bizarre that you stopped responding. Where did you get that idea?

My initial post didn't "ignore" anything. I chose to respond to a portion of it, not as a negation of the rest or of the theme in general. Pointing out that Covid changed driving and biking in the US in a way different from Europe doesn't mean that I'm in denial the other points the article makes, or even that I disagree in general. So you're response as if I was arguing with the article and failing to even acknowledge the fact that there was a cycling and motor camping surge between 2020 and 2022 comes off as passive aggressive.
...OK, now this is truly bizarre. I feel like I'm talking to someone with multiple personality disorder.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:20 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...OK, now this is truly bizarre. I feel like I'm talking to someone with multiple personality disorder.
And talking to you two gentlemen feels like you're guessing at motivations rather than reading the text I post.


This whole Advocacy forum seems to thrive on people talking past each other and taking offense that other people don't immediately appreciate whatever viewpoint is being fronted. I thought my first post was very clear and very mundane. The gent who posted about boating fatalities seemed to understand my point.

Last edited by Kontact; 01-07-23 at 07:24 PM.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:20 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
I also lived in Naples, and saw little to no city cycling. But I wasn't suggesting that Europe has a homogenous cycling/driving culture. Germany has some of the best freeways in the world! But clearly the old cities, with their tiny streets, cause people to think about pedestrians and other non-auto people in the streets with an awareness that our much more segregated urban sidewalk system requires.
...it also results in smaller cars being much more popular. That was the point I was trying to make with my Alfa Duetto comment. I wasn't bragging about the car.

Originally Posted by Kontact
The Dutch get 2 inches of snow a year and there are virtually no hills. Chicago gets 37. Yes, the Netherlands have mild winters. It sounds much easier than living in Seattle.
...so you're convinced that snow is more of an impediment to cycling than is rain ? I have cycled in both, and snow is much less miserable per mile.

The climate of the Netherlands is influenced by the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, so it's cool, cloudy and humid for most of the year. The rains are not so abundant, ranging between 750/850 millimeters (29/33 inches) per year, but they are frequent throughout the year.
The wind is another characteristic of the Dutch climate, and blows frequently, especially in autumn and winter, when there may even be storms.
Being a small and flat country, the Netherlands have a quite uniform climate, although there's a slightly greater continentality in inland areas (but we are talking about 1-2 degrees Celsius less in winter and more in summer) compared with coastal areas, which in turn are more windy. Furthermore, the north (see Friesland, Drenthe, Groningen) is slightly colder than the center-south.

Winter, from December to February, is cold but not freezing, with daily average temperatures ranging from 2.5 °C (36.5 °F) in the north (see Groningen) to 4 °C (39 °F) on the south-western coast (see Rotterdam, Vissingen).
There are periods when Atlantic currents prevail, and the weather is mild, with highs above 10 °C (50 °F), but windy and rainy as well; in other periods, when the country is reached by a high pressure system, the weather can be dull and foggy.
On the other hand, cold air masses from Eastern Europe may sometimes reach the country, bringing cold spells, and in these cases, the temperatures can remain below freezing even during the day. This kind of frosty weather typically lasts a few days and is followed by the return of the westerlies, which may initially bring snowfalls; for this reason, snow is generally not abundant and is often followed by rain.
https://www.climatestotravel.com/climate/netherlands
...I had to Google this, to make sure I was remembering the same country. You're right, it sounds just delightful for cycling. My mistake.

The average distance people commute has everything to the point I was making about driving culture and exposure to peds and cyclists. You may want to separate it because it doesn't make whatever point you want it to, but it is exactly what I've been getting at - people learn to deal with the things that are most relevant to their daily driving. Encountering cyclists and walkers is less common in the US per mile driven. In fact, I'll bet that the US is safer for peds and cyclists per car mile.
...the point of this whole exercise was to share some thoughtfully constructed prose on how the people who are in a situation to commute by bicycle are getting killed more frequently in the US than in other countries. If you want to "bet that the US is safer for peds and cyclists per car mile", feel free to do so. But let's not pretend it's on topic, because it's not.

​​​​​​​
3alarmer is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:33 PM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...it also results in smaller cars being much more popular. That was the point I was trying to make with my Alfa Duetto comment. I wasn't bragging about the car.



...so you're convinced that snow is more of an impediment to cycling than is rain ? I have cycled in both, and snow is much less miserable per mile.



...I had to Google this, to make sure I was remembering the same country. You're right, it sounds just delightful for cycling. My mistake.



...the point of this whole exercise was to share some thoughtfully constructed prose on how the people who are in a situation to commute by bicycle are getting killed more frequently in the US than in other countries. If you want to "bet that the US is safer for peds and cyclists per car mile", feel free to do so. But let's not pretend it's on topic, because it's not.
I've bike commuted in Madison, Chicago and Seattle. Putting up with just wet on flat streets would be better than either place. But snowy, slushy roads that ice up are about the worst you can as for. The weather on the Med. would be much better than the Netherlands, but that doesn't mean that the what the Dutch cycle in with upright, fendered bikes and relatively short distances is miserable.

I didn't say anything about your car. I don't think car size matters all that much. They all can kill cyclists.

What's on topic are the underlying causes of cars hitting cyclists. I'm asserting that people that drive in the snow a lot are good at driving in snow, and people that drive around pedestrians and cyclists a lot are similarly good. So when it is asserted that the cause of US bike accidents MUST be a single major factor like infrastructure design - I really wonder how people jump to such conclusions. It's much more complex than that. Why do so many more Japanese cyclists get killed? Bullet trains?
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:33 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
And talking to you two gentlemen feels like you're guessing at motivations rather than reading the text I post.
...I would like to point out to you that it is not me calling you "passive aggressive". I can assure you that when the situation calls for aggression, mine is right out there, for all the world to see. I do admit that I am not as ___________ (fill in the blank) as you seem to be, because I would never, ever, ever make the statement, "Personally, I have commuted in many US cities by bike, and never found it to be particularly difficult or especially dangerous."

I worked for local fire here as a firefighter/EMT, and I used to joke all the time about how the most dangerous thing I did on the job was commuting to and from the stations by bicycle.

I'm not guessing at anything, with regard to motivation. You've made it abundantly clear over the course of this thread. And please try not to lump me together with anyone else. It makes it sound like you're some sort of victim of a coordinated attack. I simply disagree with a lot (not all) of what you've written. I've been very clear as to why, and painfully polite in addressing your points, many of which seem poorly thought out to me. If you are so easily victimized, you should probably just avoid these discussions. Some people here are really very mean.
3alarmer is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:43 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,998

Bikes: old ones

Liked 10,449 Times in 7,248 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact

I didn't say anything about your car. I don't think car size matters all that much. They all can kill cyclists.
...what you think about this is not borne out by the many fact based links I've provided for you. I can't make you read them.

Originally Posted by Kontact
What's on topic are the underlying causes of cars hitting cyclists. I'm asserting that people that drive in the snow a lot are good at driving in snow, and people that drive around pedestrians and cyclists a lot are similarly good. So when it is asserted that the cause of US bike accidents MUST be a single major factor like infrastructure design - I really wonder how people jump to such conclusions. It's much more complex than that. Why do so many more Japanese cyclists get killed? Bullet trains?
...OK. I'm out again. No one, and certainly not me, has asserted that "the cause of US bike accidents MUST be a single major factor like infrastructure design". I'm the guy posting up all sorts of information and articles about various factors, all of which you apparently disbelieve. There's a rhetorical technique called "argument by assertion". Your responses in this thread are the very definition of this. I'm sure it must be very enjoyable, because you can respond instantly to anything, with another assertion. No need to consider those pesky alternative facts. You have it all figured out, and that's just how it is. I think that's great for you, but honestly, do not expect me to respond further. Life is too short. Be careful out there. Paranoia, when not the unreasonable paralyzing sort, is something I find useful in riding a bicycle here.

I'm sure it must be very different where you live.
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 01-07-23, 07:44 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...I would like to point out to you that it is not me calling you "passive aggressive". I can assure you that when the situation calls for aggression, mine is right out there, for all the world to see. I do admit that I am not as ___________ (fill in the blank) as you seem to be, because I would never, ever, ever make the statement, "Personally, I have commuted in many US cities by bike, and never found it to be particularly difficult or especially dangerous."

I worked for local fire here as a firefighter/EMT, and I used to joke all the time about how the most dangerous thing I did on the job was commuting to and from the stations by bicycle.

I'm not guessing at anything, with regard to motivation. You've made it abundantly clear over the course of this thread. And please try not to lump me together with anyone else. It makes it sound like you're some sort of victim of a coordinated attack. I simply disagree with a lot (not all) of what you've written. I've been very clear as to why, and painfully polite in addressing your points, many of which seem poorly thought out to me. If you are so easily victimized, you should probably just avoid these discussions. Some people here are really very mean.
The only thing I've made clear in the thread is that my personal commuting experience and technique has left me with no impression that I'm constantly about to be killed. Drivers do dumb stuff around me all the time, but I know they're going to do those things and have avoided them. I see plenty of bike commuters who ride with a very rigid set of rules and set themselves up for failure. Commuting isn't karmic - you don't become safer because you politely follow the rules and are predictable. That philosophy makes you invisible.

I'm not the victim of a coordinated attack - I was just attacked twice by two different guys for the same posts.

I can see you think very little of my points. You have yet to address the first one I made in the thread.
Kontact is offline  
Old 01-07-23, 07:47 PM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,535
Liked 1,857 Times in 1,202 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...what you think about this is not borne out by the many fact based links I've provided for you. I can't make you read them.



...OK. I'm out again. No one, and certainly not me, has asserted that "the cause of US bike accidents MUST be a single major factor like infrastructure design". I'm the guy posting up all sorts of information and articles about various factors, all of which you apparently disbelieve. There's a rhetorical technique called "argument by assertion". Your responses in this thread are the very definition of this. I'm sure it must be very enjoyable, because you can respond instantly to anything, with another assertion. No need to consider those pesky alternative facts. You have it all figured out, and that's just how it is. I think that's great for you, but honestly, do not expect me to respond further. Life is too short. Be careful out there. Paranoia, when not the unreasonable paralyzing sort, is something I find useful in riding a bicycle here.

I'm sure it must be very different where you live.
What kind of argument is it when you completely ignore a post you're quoting and just offer an unrelated link?
Kontact is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.