TandemGeek

Having been away from A&S and most other parts of BF for several years, I've not "met" you before. Having now read through some of your other writings it's pretty clear you live in a world where anything that doesn't fit your model of "cycling" is a blasphemy that must be rebuked.

Unfortunately, your biases make it such that you can't see the forest for the trees...

The reason I introduced the stereotypical minimum wage worker on a bike was to remind "cyclists" that when looking at fatality statistics they need to remain open-minded as to "what" exactly a pedalcyclist IS.. and that's anyone riding a bike, regardless of what they ride, how they dress and why they ride. Therefore, and much to your chagrin, my statement reinforces much of what you 'preach' in your postings...

A cyclist is not defined by what they look like, ride or why they ride.... they are simply people who ride bicycles.

As for "logging miles", I don't have a friggin' clue how many miles I ride a year. A rough idea, yes... And, yes, there are cyclists who log every mile they ride OR who commute the same 20 mile round trip each day x number of weeks a year who can predict with fairly good accuracy how many miles they ride. Conversely, it's commonplace for many cyclists to exaggerate / overstate their riding exploits and that type of data routinely makes it way into 'surveys' regarding bicycle ridership, lord knows why... but I've seen it in the raw data I've received during my own tandem ridership & ownership surveys over the past 6 years or so. Cranky, if you believed what Bicycling puts out in their data in terms of how many people ride bikes and how often the US would look like Europe, except that everyone would be riding $10k bicycles: have you ever SEEN Bicycling Mag's Media Kit?? https://www.bicycling.com/mediakit/au...ingmarket.html

So, my point is this.

I'm not a Helmet zealot... I wear one and I have taught my family to wear them when we're riding on public roads or riding technical off-road trails because it's prudent, but I really don't care if you or anyone else does.

I'm not really a bike snob, but can easily be assumed to be since I own and ride very high-end bikes and spend the majority of my time engaged in the technical, high-end aspects of the cycling hobby. But, it's not a zero-sum game. Again, I don't care what anyone else rides, so long as they ride what they like and ride responsibly. It pisses me off when I see anyone on a bike doing something that will feed motorist disdain for cyclists who ride on public roads... in much the same way that it pisses me off to watch folks who ride motorcycles like idiots or who are moronic enough to think "loud pipes" do anything other than annoy people who still have most of their hearing intact (I'm a motorcyclist too; these "tribal" issues are not germane to the cycling community).

Therefore, my examples were not intended to suggest that helmetless, civilian clothed cyclists are what drives fatality statistics. Instead, it attempted to make the point that it's a very diverse population embedded in those numbers and they should be looked at with that in mind. Without exception, any time I've ever posted out the FARS data on cyclists it IS the DUI numbers that catch readers by surprise. Just imagine how large that number might be if they reported BACs between .00 and .079. And, no... it's not just alcoholics caught up in those numbers. It's anyone who decides to drink and then ride -- in flips, cycling shoes, sneakers or work boots -- and ends up in a body bag or ICU on their way to the FARS database.

I'll close my tome with this except from my own Website and an entry I made back in March before I began a hiatus from making updates over the summer.

Give the martyr thing a rest.... really... and don't presume to know what's in my mind or tell me how to write.

Carusoswi

I was wondering when someone would make this point.

Caruso

Carusoswi

In context of the other examples, this one seems a bit out of place. That the 12-year old was riding against traffic seems a moot point. He was probably moving all of 5 or 10 mph. No matter which direction he was traveling, it's likely the truck would have struck him with deadly impact.

We can't assume details from such a short description, but I am always leery when riding that someone in a motor vehicle will attempt to overtake another on the right shoulder and strike me. I ride with the traffic always, but doubt that that practice keeps me much safer from this sort of an 'accident.'

Caruso

Carusoswi

I didn't bother to look up your posts to gather ammunition for or against your position, but, having read your post that started this exchange between you and ILTB, it struck me as quite condescending, snobbish, and quite general in what I interpreted as an assumption on your part that the statistics are significantly skewed by riders who ride out of necessity (as if riding out of necessity automatically somehow degrades their quality of ridesmanship in a way that negatively affects the statistics of the riding population).

Not all flannel-clad riders on undersized bikes are overly prone to accidental injury or death, and, if there were some sort of qualitative record keeping in conjunction with the 'raw' data, I'm willing to bet that more than an insignificant number of DUI cyclists are so simply because they drink and ride, not because they are constrained to ride owing to previous DUI convictions.

Not everyone who rides in street clothes does so because he/she doesn't own, can't afford, or isn't legal to drive a car, and, believe it or not, many who do ride bikes because they can't afford to drive are actually decent people.

As I mentioned, I didn't look up your posting history, and I haven't looked up ILTB's, either, since, in my view, the info and tone within this thread speaks for itself.

Whether you meant it or not, your post struck me as having a tone to which I take exception, and I support ILTB's point.

Respectfully,

Caruso

TandemGeek

In the light of day and looking back at my original post I will put my hat in my hand and agree that I can see how what I wrote did not clearly convey my intent in introducing an often overlooked and under-represented segment of the bicycle riding public. The latter are well represented in the communities in which I live and work and are a common sight. However, unlike the news stories that make the rounds on forums when a cycling friend is struck down by a car, their passings never seem to make it past the police blotter.

So, for painting it that way I apologize to the readers, again: it was not my intent in the earlier postings.

As for my tone, again... it was boorish. I should have taken time to directly respond to ILTB's more salient points and ignored the undertones that speak to his biases. We all have our moments of weakness.

Thankfully, I've now remembered why I don't frequent A&S.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are right, I am biased - against boorish posts and the snobbish posters who post them.

I understand why you want to avoid A&S, who likes their self righteous BS questioned or their hat handed to them?

Stick to the forums and blogs where no one will question YOUR Conventional Wisdom and your way with words will not be challenged. Or stick around and learn something; I think you already have.

twentysixtwo

At first, I too thought this was non-informative (50% of fatalities occur in 50% of the day) but if you stop and think, there are a heckuvalot fewer bikes and cars on the road at night. This means that per unit mile traveled, it's probably 10 times more dangerous if we assume that on a miles traveled basis people ride mostly during daylight hours. This is true for me. Of the 1400 miles I've traveled this year, less than 200 miles were done between 6 pm and 6 am.

The more significant is that 21% are in the 3 hour stretch from 6-9 pm A bit suprised by the rate of RUI (riding under the influence) wish the stats showed % where alcohol was involved with the other vehicle...

Another interesting thing is the rise in deaths without helmets since 2004. Perhaps more people are riding due to the economy? The rise isn't huge.

What is really interesting is the massive march since 1975 of deaths being shifted to persons over 16. Is this due to so many more kids wearing helmets, or because kids don't ride bikes anymore - they just sit on their butts playing Nintendo?

closetbiker

it's a basic principle of safety to not travel against the flow of traffic.

Most often collisions with wrong way riders occur at intersections because when a driver arrives at the roadway the wrong way cyclist is riding on, and wants to get on that roadway, he/she looks in the direction that traffic is expected to be coming from, and not from where it should not. Once the way is clear for the driver to pull out on the roadway in the direction the driver is looking at, the driver usually goes without looking for traffic coming from the wrong direction and collides with the wrong way rider.



On occasion, one a one lane roadway, drivers pull onto a shoulder to pass a left turning vehicle on its right, or a driver simply drifts a little to the right and ends up on the shoulder. It's not as common as intersections collision, but it happens.

Check out how many more collisions happen to wrong way riders and how as young cyclists become adults, they are not involved in as many wrong way collisions (most often, because they've learned that riding on the wrong side of the road leads to collisions)




One study showed that riding the wrong way was three times as dangerous as riding the right way, and for kids, the risk is seven times greater.

A wrong way rider can also collide with another cyclist who is traveling with traffic. There's often not much room at the side of the road and there's nothing like a head on between two cyclists. Again, at intersections or corners, when the cyclists can't see each other coming, it can be quite a surprise.

TandemGeek

Kudo's to the Iowa Bicycle Coalition for it's compilation on '08 and '09 year-to-date fatal cycling accident information: https://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/node/52

That it happens to be Iowa is coincidental. However, it's interesting to see the FARS data only lists 5 fatalities for Iowa in 2008, whereas the data compiled by IBC lists 8.

Do other's live in states, large cities or other locales where similar compilations are maintained for public consuption? Or, has anyone else attempted to reconcile that oft-cited NHTSA FARS data with state maintained data or perhaps other advocacy organization compilations?

Feldman

What I have believed for a long time--Henry Ford was the greatest mass killer of all human history.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin were all amateurs and wimps by comparison.

I-Like-To-Bike

"October 2008, Douglas Kenny, 21, of West Burlington was killed as a driver hit him from the opposite direction. The driver claimed the sun was in his eyes, but witnesses said otherwise. The driver received a suspended 60-day jail sentence and probation, fined $2,000 and his driver's license was suspended for 360 days."

This fatality on the IBC list for 2008 happened on a stretch of the road I commute on everyday. The driver was not coming from the opposite direction on this 4 lane divided 55 MPH highway, but struck him from behind. Both were going westbound near 6PM and the sun in the eye defense was played by the one eyed elderly motorist. The sun sets in the west in this part of Iowa. The thumbnail was snapped about a mile farther up the same road. I have no knowledge about the accuracy of the rest of the IBC list.

Jesse Miller

My little brother got hit 2 times in his life. He is OK, but he still got hit and rolled over the hoods of these two cars. I can safely say that he does not look both ways before he crosses the intersection. I have seen this with my own eyes. My little brother is one of those young kids who is half brain dead and always has that tired looking stare on his face. He looks like he is stoned all of the time. I can see why he was hit both times. In the last three weeks while riding to work, I have seen two cyclists almost get ran over. A cyclist was waiting for the light to turn green. When the light turned green, he started to pedal at the same time a tractor-trailer ran the stop light and skidded to a stop in the middle of the intersection. I did not see him look both ways before pedaling across the intersection. The other day, this guy was riding one of those long bicycles with his kid sitting on the back. He and his kid almost got ran over because the car ran the light. Again, the cyclist did not look both ways. Here is the point of my statement. Just because bicyclists are in bike lanes and may or may not have the right-of-way, they still need to look both ways before crossing an intersection. This can be applied to industrial, residential, or urban intersection.

I-Like-To-Bike

So much for rational discussion on this thread.

Jesse Miller

I think it has become very dangerous cycling in 2009 than ever. With all of the portable electronic devices that can fit in your pocket, drivers can easily be distracted. I saw a woman who was text messaging on her phone while driving her car. I was going 55mph and she was next to me swerving all over the road. She almost hit me. I think cycling could be broken down to common sense. Common sense tells me that if I get on my bicycle, ride down a road that has a 55mph speed limit; I have a chance to be run over. What really makes me mad is the cyclist who rides in the winding mountain roads with a soft shoulder and only one lane in each direction. I have lost count of how many times that I have been driving my car through the winding mountain roads while going the speed limit and almost hit a cyclist. Common sense tells me that if I am riding on a country road with only one lane and a soft shoulder, I might get ran over. No matter how anybody looks at cycling, most roads where only designed for automobile traffic, not bicycle and automobile traffic. Bike lanes have only been a recent luxury most states have adopted. The only reason most states make bike lanes is for the federal money they receive. If each state did not receive any money from the feds, there would be no bike lanes.

Brian Sorrell

It's overstated, playing the Fascist card and all, but the underlying point is well taken, I think. Whenever I see stats like these, I'm staggered by how incredibly dangerous cars are. Something like 1 in 120 people in the US are *injured* in a crash every year -- let alone just how many fender benders and the like there are. That's really quite a lot --- and the resources that taxpayers have to dump into cleaning up the messes on the road --- --- --- wow.

But I'll stop before I get too far on my typical anti-automobile rants....

crhilton

According to the book "Traffic" this is false. Supposedly a motorist sees a cyclist and is thrown because they don't expect to see humans, they expect to see metal boxes. They look again and make judgements based on gender, age, helmet, etc. Most are then overly cautious.

But if it's a guy riding at night with no lights, no reflectors, and dark clothes, on the sidewalk: They're just not gonna see him a large percentage of the time.

In my opinion, it's getting sadder every year. LED lights with rechargeable batteries are entirely affordable for anyone who can afford shoes. But bike companies charge 10 times the value for the lights. And this is only getting worse as the lights hold the same price and the parts get cheaper and cheaper.

I'm fine paying $200 for all of my lights, but someone thinking about utility cycling (who has $200) is going to shy away. Someone who doesn't have $200 is just going to chance it.

crhilton

I didn't get snobbish or boorish from it. I didn't get that he thinks drunk middle class cyclists don't exist either. I got that he was saying:
1. Some cyclists are dirt poor.
2. Some cyclists aren't legally allowed to drive.
3. They pretty much get ignored when they die.

Can't say that I disagree with any of that. And I've seen cyclists who probably fit that description riding around. It's good to consider them, due to #1, when talking about things like lighting.

TandemGeek

I don't disagree with what you've noted.

But, I will clarify that I was talking more in the general sense of a cyclist's place on the road.

In talking with friends and co-workers who are not cyclists but who will be candid, if it's 3:00pm and they're driving on a road and there's a cyclist riding along the shoulder of the road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph they see the lycra clad rider with a helmet cruising along at 25 mph as a "someone in a silly outfit pretending to be Lance Armstong who shouldn't be on the road" (by the way, that's fairly close to a direct quote from at least three different people whom I know). Change that person to somone who has on jeans, a sweatshirt and perhaps a back pack and they're still, "someone... who shouldn't be on the road".

In fact, it seems the lycra-clad riders draw a bit more scorn than riders in street clothes from my non-cyclist friends and co-workers, perhaps even more from those who do ride bikes but do so only on the local bike trails.

The relevance to this thread is, there's not usually too much distrinction by non-cycling friends and co-workers when a person on a bike is struck down on a public road by a car. The presumption of guilt is immediately placed on the cyclist because "they shouldn't have been on the road in the first place" and, "more likely than not, they pulled out in front of the car." Again, this is based on conversations I've had over the years when the subject comes up, i.e., during casual conversation when they learn my wife and me are cyclists who ride almost exclusively on public roads. Even when it was someone whom we knew something about who did every thing right and was not at fault we may elicit some emphathy, but the conversation usually ends with the premise being, "That's why bikes don't belong on the road; it's just too dangerous". It's a tough nut to crack.

crhilton

Fair enough, I see what you're getting at. Basically, "cyclists shouldn't be there" is a first principle for motorists and it invalidates any arguments about lycra riders versus poor folks (they don't care if you need to ride, you still should do it elsewhere).

The problem lycra clad riders have is that they wear their purpose on their sleave. If you joy ride in your car, no one knows. If you joy ride in lycra on your bike: The jig is up.

Sure, some people ride to work in lycra. But we all know they can afford to drive...

(Please don't ascribe this thinking to me, it's just my guesses about what many may think.)

gcottay

Thanks for the data links.

Thanks also to posters who have stayed on topic and refrained from childish quarrel.

AlmostTrick

When even cyclists like Jesse Miller (above) agree with this, it indeed is a tough nut to crack.

mikeybikes

I don't think Jesse Miller is a cyclist. Not once did he mention riding his own bicycle.

I-Like-To-Bike

What topic, other than a list of raw data and guesswork about its significance?

Jesse Miller

Yes, I am a cyclist. I like riding my road bike just as most of you do. I commute 2 days a week, 15 miles one way. I did not agree with anybody, I was just commenting on the statistics that were presented at the beginning of this forum. I have owned a bike since I was born. The examples that I presented were what I have seen while riding my bike and driving my car. As long as cars and bicycles share the road, people will get hurt.

genec

In talking to various non-cyclists at either work or socially, this also is what I generally hear. The focus seems to be "the roads are built for cars," and people will then harp out a bunch of false truths to support this claim... including the oft mentioned "road tax."

If I interject into such conversations, or reveal that I am a cyclist and point out that the laws of all 50 states support cyclists using the roads in virtually the same manner as any other road user, the first thing I hear is denial, usually followed by a series of rationalizations about why cycling on the road is dangerous and should not be allowed.

This is a never ending battle. Frankly I am tired of it and I want some form of public message to go out (much like the anti-drinking campaigns) to educate motorists in general that they cannot go about with their "rolling living rooms" and expect to own the road.

I really am fed up with trying to educate each and every motorist I encounter about their responsibility.

As a side note, Jesse Miller here on this thread displays the typical motorist mentality... "well I was doing the speed limit."

Does anyone that drives a car understand that they are really responsible for NOT HITTING anything on the road in front of them, and that LIMIT does not mean "drive this speed."

The whole speed LIMIT thing drives me bonkers.
The speed limit is not a point to be achieved, it is a boundary that should not be exceeded... therefore it is prudent for the driver of a vehicle to maintain some safe speed BELOW that limit. And a safe speed is one where the driver can maintain control of the vehicle and drive within the sight lines of the ability to stop the vehicle. If you cannot see around the next corner, or over the next hill, it is not safe to proceed, at speed, toward those situations.