Some grim cycling stats

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing
these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New
Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas
jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking
short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better
comparison, but still isn't really comparable.

In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to
the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on
relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both
more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a
congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews
the numbers at least some.

Joseph

i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc--
about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a
large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault.
certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding
through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets,
stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have
information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than
counterparts in europe?

however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are
much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their
american brethren.

i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in
attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of
transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing
extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that
people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason,
but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to
give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a
turn, etc..

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations.

And that's mainly because people in the US ride overwhelmingly like
morons. You reap what you sow, eh? Being a Euro-'merican should have
my ass covered, now hand me my jaunty cap, it's ridin' time!

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the
unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly.

One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the
biking population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be
cautious about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where
bikes are rare and concluding that the differences were other than just
the greater awareness due to greater presence.

Peter Cole said:

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

Quoted message said:

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

Quoted message said:

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the
unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly.

One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the
biking population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be
cautious about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where
bikes are rare and concluding that the differences were other than just
the greater awareness due to greater presence.

I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only
person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is
100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God
only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and
not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%.
Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other
cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was
halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just
seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie.

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

So what, we are still the number one country in the world. Who cares
if our infant mortality is higher, if the rate of people w/o health
insurance is higher, the number of people in jail is higher, if the
educational achievement is lower, if the cyclist death rate is higher
and if environmental abuse is higher.

We are number one, numero uno EZE! Kings of the road! More macho. We
are free! We have more guns! We have better, faster, more macho
airplanes and bombs that can kill more people.

Those European countries that you mention are all wussy communists
countries. We are free Americans and we kick ass. Plus the people that
die on bike accidents are probably wimpy environment loving commies
that got what they deserved. God took care of them in a Hummer!

Andres

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

note: I didn't read the fine article.

A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on
PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south
route heads to the north ...

A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane
striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to
the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the
right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely,
honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me,
along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder.

Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on
the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon
(exiting the vehicle).

Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of
splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an
unsafe pass next time.

-bdbafh

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only
person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is
100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God
only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and
not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%.
Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other
cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was
halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just
seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie.

Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by
really quite some margin.

The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one
time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the
vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for them.

With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around and
do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from "eeek,
there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok, do x"
where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see other
people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists here,
better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one".

clive

bdbafh said:

A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on
PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south
route heads to the north ...

A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane
striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to
the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the
right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely,
honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me,
along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder.

Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on
the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon
(exiting the vehicle).

Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of
splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an
unsafe pass next time.

It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the
right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not
in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper
destination positioning.

Wayne

Clive George said:

Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by
really quite some margin.

The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one
time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the
vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for
them.

With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around
and do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from
"eeek, there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist,
ok, do x" where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or
see other people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of
cyclists here, better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one".

I don't subscribe to the awareness argument either. Your "eeek-panic"
scenario implies that that is a reason why collisions happen. I don't
believe that is what happens.

I believe that the "more cyclists the safer" scenario is a population,
rather than individual, based phenomenom and is likely attributable to
slow speed locations. The slower the motor vehicle typical speed due to
congestion the more likely cycling is attractive and the less likely are
collisions. The more congestion the more people also have to be aware of
their surroundings.

Wayne

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and
per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in
infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing
these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New
Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas
jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking
short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better
comparison, but still isn't really comparable.

In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to
the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on
relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both
more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a
congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews
the numbers at least some.

Joseph

In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that
authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You blame
America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or
fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong.

In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the majority
of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of
encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they have
a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have different
infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities designed
for cars and so much more.

Maybe you just didn't know.

Clive George said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only
person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is
100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God
only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and
not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%.
Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other
cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was
halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just
seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie.

Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by
really quite some margin.

The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one
time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the
vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for them.

With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around and
do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from "eeek,
there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok, do x"
where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see other
people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists here,
better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one".

Too many assumptions. Let's say there is an increase in bicycle
facilities separating the two populations -- as is the case here in
PDX. The number of cyclists going over the Hawthorne Bridge, for
example, has sky rocketed -- but you would have to jump a high curb in
your car to hit anyone. The main routes on and off the bridge have
dedicated bicycle lanes. Moreover, due to the number of cyclists
commuting to downtown and increased public transportation, the
percentage driving cars has actually dropped. See http://tinyurl.com/2da8fe
Moreover, cyclists take the traffic lanes riding downtown because the
traffic is slow already. You could double the cycling population (put
them five abreast) without any significant increase in car versus
bicycle injuries. The reduction in injury rate would result solely
because of the increased numbers of cyclists without any change in
driver behavior.

Now, if you are going from an area of zero bicycles or a couple of
bicycles to a lot, then there will be a traffic calming effect --
maybe. But the studies that I recall reading used city-wide numbers
without reference to bicycle populations in particular areas, which is
very important. Where you have any significant, existing population
of cyclists, doubling that population does not double driver awareness
or account for the reducion in injury statistics. That is simply a
function of populations and statistics. -- Jay Beattie.

Wayne Pein said:

bdbafh said:

A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on
PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south
route heads to the north ...

Quoted message said:

A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane
striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to
the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the
right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely,
honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me,
along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder.

Quoted message said:

Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on
the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon
(exiting the vehicle).

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of
splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an
unsafe pass next time.

It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the
right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not
in accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper
destination positioning.

Wayne

The section of road was about a 3% climb.
I was traveling slower than prevailing traffic.
Had I been traveling the other direction (downhill) I would have taken
the lane.
I usually attempt to ride on the shoulder if at all possible, except
when traveling at speed or when I feel that its necessary to take the
lane.

I'm not saying that I was right or that you were wrong, but that I
don't see the law here being quite clear:

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/bikelaws.htm

"(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower
than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.

[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal
speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than
existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for
traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of
the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle
proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at
an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This
subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a
lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended
route.]

Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower
vehicles should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of
all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements
consistent with their intended route."

A bike lane stripe between the through lane and the right turn lane is
what should be in place.

thanks for the comment, anyways.

-bdbafh

"autopi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc--
about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a
large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault.
certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding
through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets,
stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have
information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than
counterparts in europe?

however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are
much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their
american brethren.

i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in
attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of
transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing
extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that
people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason,
but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to
give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a
turn, etc..

Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the
law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. Cycling
is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and also
the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are
designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with
that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my nose
piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in five
minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's show."

Greens said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and
per-trip
basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as German
cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists. While
cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the last 25
years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a drop in
cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in
infrastructure
that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying cycling in the US is safe or anything, but comparing
these countries is like apples and oranges. Holland is as big as New
Jersey but has twice as many people with lots of congested urban areas
jammed full of folks on bikes. Lots of "normal" people too taking
short trips down to the baker, etc. Germany is perhaps a better
comparison, but still isn't really comparable.

Quoted message said:

In the US it seems to me bike users are either winos on their way to
the liquour store the wrong way at night, or fitness cyclists out on
relatively long rides on roads with fast car traffic. These are both
more dangerous than putting along basically on the sidewalk in a
congested urban area like millions do in Holland. I'm sure this skews
the numbers at least some.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

In other words you don't think the entirely different attitude that
authorities and society have towards cycling makes any difference? You blame
America's poor stats on the cyclists themselves. They're either drunks or
fitness freaks riding on roads where they don't belong.

I'm just saying I'm wary of comparing apples and oranges. The numbers
are skewed by the fact that a huge number of people in Holland and
Germany use bikes in ways that are not that common in the US. They
ride them at a leisurely pace in a congested urban environment. If I
were to take a 100 mile ride on some random American country road I
don't think I'd be 3x as likely to be hit than if I were to take a 100
mile ride in Holland. They are probably reasonably similar in terms of
risk. But if you want to talk about safety per distance, in the US my
100 mile ride on a moderatly dangerous country road also has some
number of "safe" miles riddden by other cyclists putting around in
town. Maybe 100. In Holland my 100 mile ride in a moderatly dangerous
road would be offset by thousdands of safe miles ridden by others.
This isn't an argument for not having proper infrastructure, just
pointing out that the populations of bike users are vastly different.
And it's not just infrastructure that makes it that way.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

In Germany and The Netherlands the motoist almost always gets the majority
of the blame in cycling accidents and pedestrian deaths. Instead of
encouraging car culture and motorist arrogance in those countries they have
a master plan to reduce deaths among cyclists and peds. They have different
infrastructure, i.e, cities designed for humans instead of cities designed
for cars and so much more.

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

U.S. Bikers Less Safe Than European Counterparts

In the United States, cyclists are 12 times more likely than people in
cars to die en route to their destinations. On a per-kilometer and
per-trip basis, U.S. cyclists are twice as likely to die on the road as
German cyclists, and more than three times as likely as Dutch cyclists.
While cycling fatalities in all of these countries have fallen in the
last 25 years, U.S. cycling deaths have declined largely because of a
drop in cycling, while in the Netherlands and Germany investments in
infrastructure that make cycling safer account for much of the decline.

http://www.thebicyclebum.com/

It's very difficult to reach these statistics easily because of the
unknowns in cyclist mileage, as a result estimates vary wildly.

One thing that seems to have been firmly established is that as the biking
population goes up the rate of car-bike crashes goes down. I'd be cautious
about comparing locales where bikes are common to those where bikes are
rare and concluding that the differences were other than just the greater
awareness due to greater presence.

Fix the public's attitude (mostly the motoring public's attitude), fix the
infrastructure so that it welcomes cyclists and you'll get more cyclists and
safety... but there are limits. Even the Dutch have fatalities. Cars and
bikes or at least what they do is inheirently dangerous. The human body was
designed to survive unscathed impacts of very low speed. Cycling and
motoring result in impacts of considerably higher speed, motoring
especially. The Germans did some studies. They found that impacts of 30 mph
have few survivors when the impacted are unprotected by cages and bags.
Impacts at 20mph are much more surviveable. As a result the roads in Germany
have been designed so that when bikes and cars mix there isn't more than
20mph in their speeds.

Greens said:

"autopi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i recently read something--i think it was linked off bikesnobnyc--
about cycling accidents in brooklyn, and the author claimed that in a
large majority of cases, it was the cyclist who was at fault.
certainly this corresponds to what i see on my commute--bikers riding
through busy intersections, going the wrong way down one-way streets,
stopping in the middle of a busy bike lane, etc.. does anyone have
information about this? are cyclists in the US more reckless than
counterparts in europe?

Quoted message said:

however, let it be said that in my experience, drivers in france are
much more courteous and competent at sharing the road than their
american brethren.

Quoted message said:

i also suspect part of the difference may come down to difference in
attitude. in some locales, cycling is understood as a normal means of
transport. in the US, only crazy people, kids and lycra-wearing
extremists (i.e., crazy people) ride bikes on the road. not that
people are intentionally running bikers off the road for this reason,
but it may mean drivers are less likely to keep in mind the need to
give adequate room to cyclists, look before opening doors or making a
turn, etc..

Cyclists in the USA have little reason to respect motorists, cops or the
law. All of them act as though cyclists are impeding their progress. Cycling
is seen as something for children and people who've never grown up and also
the aforementioned fitness fanatics. Infrastructure, law enforcement are
designed in such a way that they wordlessly shout, "Get off the road with
that stupid bicycle, you idiot! Get a car! Get a life! I'm late for my nose
piercing! I gotta get my pit bull a new collar and the store closes in five
minutes! I can't help it I'm late. I was all caught up in Dr. Phil's show."

My cycling experience in the US is in NYC, Chicago, LA, and I've
ridden in Rockies in Colorado. All those places were vastly more
pleasant to ride in than the European cities I've ridden in: Paris,
London, Milan, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona. Those European citeis were
just too crowded and the drivers drove much faster (when not sitting
in a jam) and put their cars WAY too close to me. Those drivers seemed
to know what they were doing, but it was my life they were gambling
with. In the US I was always given a much wider berth and the driving
scene is just much more relaxed. Out on country roads, I have been
most comfortable in Spain and Italy, despite how fast they drivers and
how many cars as they seem aware of me and the other road users. This
has nothing to do with infrastructure. Nor enforcement. In Paris I saw
a guy get hit on his bike right in front of a police officer who did
nothing other than watch as the driver and the rider argued a bit then
exchanged info.

Again, I'm not arguing against proper infrastructure, nor suggesting
that riding in some semi-suburban cities in the US is pleasant, I'm
just saying that the cyclist-motorist relationship isn't made by cops
or bike paths.

Joseph

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jay Beattie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I always thought the "awareness" argument was BS. If I am the only
person on the road, and I get hit by a car, then the injury rate is
100%. If there happens to be one person on the road ahead of me (God
only knows where -- these studies are usually specific to a city and
not a street), and I get hit, then the injury rate drops to only 50%.
Huge drop. Now the guy who hit me knows nothing about the other
cyclist who was, let's say, across town. The notion that the rate was
halved because of "driver awareness" makes no sense at all. It just
seems like fun with numbers. -- Jay Beattie.

Um - that seems to be missing the point about the awareness argument by
really quite some margin.

The awareness isn't about knowing where one individual cyclist is at one
time, it's about being aware that there's likely to be a cyclist in the
vicinity and modifying one's behaviour to suit - ie by looking out for
them.

With more cyclists out there, people get more used to them being around
and do indeed modify their behaviour in a positive manner. It goes from
"eeek, there's a cyclist there, what do I do, panic!!!!" to "cyclist, ok,
do x" where x is a sensible course of action they've done before or see
other people do. It icludes things like "I always see lots of cyclists
here, better be a bit more wary - oh yes, there's one".

clive

I'm with you. I think cyclists do all gain safety when there are lots of
cyclists. Motorists start thinking a cyclist can be anywhere and also they
start to understand some of the crazy moves that cyclists might make. There
are limits to this benefit though. The Dutch have nearly a million cyclists
on their streets on an ordinary day and they still have a lot of cycling
deaths. It's just a matter of human bodies slamming, unprotected into fixed
objects or at least large, relatively immoveable masses. Roads and roadside
objects could be nerfed, i.e, made into soft, energy absorbing materials.
They put padding on ski lift poles. Same can be done for objects that
cyclists might run into in crowded cycling areas. Assume that falls will
happen.

The Dutch ride without helmets by the way. They're not safety nuts. I think
we Americans get a charge out of taking risks. The helmet in a way tells
everyone we're doing something "extreme". The Dutch don't see it as extreme.
When I was a kid in the sixties USA, I didn't see bicycling as extreme.

"Wayne Pein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bdbafh said:

A situation that evoked a honk from a displeased motorist yesterday on
PA State Route 463 west just northwest of where the BicyclePA south
route heads to the north ...

A right turn lane splits off to the right with no additional lane
striping for bikes. I took the normal action of riding a few inches to
the right of the white stripe that separated the through lane from the
right turn lane. An angry, clueless motorist passes by closely,
honking. This evokes the normal display of a hand signal from me,
along with a "lets go, right now!" with me pointing to the shoulder.

Obviously the motorist made an unsafe pass. They didn't take me up on
the offer to discuss their infraction after dropping their weapon
(exiting the vehicle).

Perhaps I'll change my tactic there to just take the lane instead of
splitting the through lane and right turn lane, preventing such an
unsafe pass next time.

It sounds as if you were a through bicyclist but riding in the
right-turn-only lane. Such riding sends an ambiguous message and is not in
accordance with the rules of the road. You should use proper destination
positioning.

Wayne

Do you mean that he should have been in the middle of the road in the lane
cars use to go straight as oppossed to the right lane where he feels safer
but is designated for right turns only by cars? I think you're right, but
then again I've seen motorists so confused that they might just roll right
over me when the light turns green not out of avarice, but out of a desire
to be courteous to the drivers behind them who are equipped with loud horns
that they eagerly use. I'm serious. I bet there are people that would at
least nudge you out of the way with their bumpers if you don't move fast
enough.