Recumbent bicycles · Public discussion

California news article

Started by Alan · · Last activity · 35 posts · 2,183 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Recumbent bicycles
Published
20 April 2004
Last activity
25 April 2004
Original author
Alan
Posts
35
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,183
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 35
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This is a long introduction to the news item excerpted
    below. I apologize for the length, but this one got me a
    little agitated. As you can see, it will be finalized as a
    letter-to-the-editor of the Press Democrat newspaper.

    Here's a classic case of 'blame the victim.' There are
    several misleading statements in this report. Several times
    it states that riding abreast is illegal in California,
    despite the fact that there is no prohibition in CA bicycle
    law against the practice. A cursory Google search takes the
    reader to this page:
    vcbike.orgbikelaw.htm
    by Alan Watchtel. Now I freely admit that I am not a lawyer,
    but I've always thought that if the law didn't specifically
    exclude some action, it was legal and allowable. Have any CA
    cyclists been successfully prosecuted for riding abreast?

    Some excerpts:

    "...many crashes are caused by the cyclists themselves,
    according to the California Highway Patrol." "...the
    greatest danger lies in cars attempting to pass on narrow
    roads, forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting them from the
    rear..." ( Martin Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa
    Cycling Club.) "The CHP...said right-of-way violations are
    among the most common bike traffic offenses." "...cyclists
    should "control" lanes so cars don't try to squeeze by..."
    "...drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part of
    the problem."

    OK, one at a time. First, 'many crashes are caused by the
    cyclists themselves.' It's true that the majority of
    cyclists treated in emergency rooms are there due to simple
    falls. Falls are responsible for 50% of all cycling
    injuries. Collisions with motor vehicles comprise 17% and
    collisions with other cyclists are another 17%. But it's
    implied that most crashes with motor vehicles are the
    cyclist's fault.

    Martin Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club,
    says that the greatest danger is getting hit from the rear.
    Mr. Clinton is misinformed, as hit-from-the-rear collisions
    comprise less than 10% of all bicycle/motor vehicle
    collisions. CHP has a better grasp on the cause of most
    crashes - right-of-way violations - and those occur at
    intersections.

    Cyclist failure to yield to crossing traffic (25%) Wrong-way
    cycling (17%) Cyclist failure to yield when changing lanes
    (13%) Motorist's left turn (8%) Sidewalk cycling (7%)
    Motorist's right turn (5%) Motorist's restart from stop sign
    (4%) (Source: Effective Cycling by J. Forester)

    With two exceptions, wrong-way cycling and a cyclist failing
    to yield when changing lanes, all of these crashes involve
    one vehicle crossing another vehicle's path, i.e. an
    intersection, regardless of whether that's on the roadway
    itself or on an adjacent sidewalk. Every driveway or parking
    lot ramp represents an intersection, particularly to a
    sidewalk cyclist. When compared to the less than 10% figure
    for hit-from-behind crashes, it's obvious that intersections
    are a much higher risk.

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a valid
    sample consists of no less than 32 scores. It's hardly
    scientific to base such broad statements as the 'cyclists
    are largely at fault' on such tiny samples as is done in
    this article. It's bad science. Further, if it's true that
    in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003, the rider was at fault,
    and that in 2002 riders were blamed in nine of the 22
    crashes, the evidence would seem to indicate that the
    results are inconclusive. Regardless, the sample size is too
    small to offer good predictions.

    Two contradictory thoughts: A cyclist should take the lane,
    thereby controlling traffic to some extent, and motorists
    see such actions as daredevil stunts performed by people who
    are oblivious of other road users. This article misses an
    opportunity to educate motorists about a cyclist taking the
    lane for his own safety, preferring to pander to the fear-
    mongering tactics of some motorists who see themselves as
    the only legitimate road users.

    This article merely fuels the animosity on the road, giving
    motorists the false impression that cyclists are somehow at
    fault for most accidents, and implying that motorists are
    blameless. Please, before printing something this
    irresponsible again, pry the doughnut out of your
    journalist's fist and enroll him in an League of American
    Bicyclists Road 1 course. Would you accept an article from a
    sportswriter who knew nothing about sports? Why then accept
    a column on cycling from a writer whose last experience of a
    bicycle was in the 4th grade?

    ========Article Excerpts Follow=============

    Taking risks on the road

    CHP says crashes like last week's fatality happen regularly
    -- and it's often not the driver's fault April 18, 2004

    By PAUL PAYNE THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

    ...The clash between cyclists and drivers came into focus
    Easter Sunday when two people riding scenic Highway 12 near
    Oakmont were hit by a suspected drunken driver. One cyclist
    was killed and another seriously injured, raising fears
    about whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    Although many cyclists recount tales of bad driving on
    perilous stretches of road, many crashes are caused by
    the cyclists themselves, according to the California
    Highway Patrol.

    ...In 2002, there were 22 crashes involving bicycles,
    including one fatality, which was deemed the fault of the
    rider. The number of crashes rose to 33 in 2003 with one
    death. The rider who was killed was ruled to be intoxicated,
    King said. And in 22 of the 33 accidents, the rider was at
    fault, she said. In 2002, riders were blamed in nine of the
    22 crashes.

    "Obviously, a collision of this type is more serious for
    the rider," King said. "And more often the bicyclists are
    at fault."

    That wasn't the case a week ago. South Bay triathletes Alan
    Liu, 31, and Jill Mason, 26, were riding through the Valley
    of the Moon when they were struck from behind by Harvey
    Hereford, 69, of Santa Rosa.

    Liu was killed and Mason was critically injured. Hereford
    was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and vehicular
    manslaughter.

    ...Bikers can get in trouble when they break traffic laws,
    like riding on the wrong side of the street, but the
    greatest danger lies in cars attempting to pass on narrow
    roads, forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting them from the
    rear, Clinton said.

    Instead, cyclists should "control" lanes so cars don't try
    to squeeze by, he said.

    That technique maddens some motorists but makes bikes more
    visible and can save lives, Santa Rosa cyclist Gary
    Segraves said.

    ...But drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part
    of the problem.

    ...In fact, it's illegal for bikes to ride side-by-side, CHP
    officers said.

    According to the state vehicle code, the only times bicycles
    can leave the right-hand side of a lane is to pass, turn
    left or avoid a road hazard.

    Groups of bicycles should always be riding single-file.

    And they must obey all traffic laws, like stopping at
    stop signs.

    ...The CHP, which handles bike accident outside cities, said
    right-of-way violations are among the most common bike
    traffic offenses.

    ..."We certainly don't want motorists thinking they
    can run people off the road," King said. "But at same
    time bicyclists need to realize they can't be two or
    three abreast."

    Staff Writer Randi Rossmann contributed to this report.

    You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 521-5250 or
    [email hidden].

    tinyurl.com272zs

    or

    pressdemocrat.com18bicycle b1em
    pireb.html

    --

    alan

    Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the
    "Daily Oklahoman."

  2. "alan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:XRZgc.1007$_o3.23011@bgtnsc05-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net... [...]

    Quoted message said:


    Two contradictory thoughts: A cyclist should take the
    lane, thereby controlling traffic to some extent, and
    motorists see such actions as daredevil stunts performed
    by people who are oblivious of other road


    users.

    Quoted message said:

    This article misses an opportunity to educate motorists
    about a cyclist taking the lane for his own safety,
    preferring to pander to the fear-mongering tactics of
    some motorists who see themselves as the only legitimate
    road users.

    So, you are going to trust your life to an "educated"
    motorist. Lots of luck on that kind of stupid trust. But I
    am fed up with trying to educate either cyclists or
    motorists, They are both equally stupid and there is no
    solution to the problem. Cyclists will continue to get
    themselves killed forever as long as they are on the road
    with motor vehicles. But have fun arguing about
    it. Your issue is nothing but a dead end - literally!

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  3. Quoted message said:

    <snip> were hit by a suspected drunken driver. One cyclist
    was killed and another seriously injured, raising fears
    about whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    AAaarrgg! If this was a pedestrian or another car hit by the
    drunk driver, they would focus on the dangers of drunk-
    driving. Here they ignore it!

    Quoted message said:

    whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    They should have said whether drunk-drivers and bikes can
    safely co-exist.

    Quoted message said:

    Falls are responsible for 50% of all cycling injuries.

    You might want to point out that we principally ride in the
    most hazardous part of the road, the shoulder or far right.
    There are sharp objects, puncture vines, etc that can cause
    us to fall. The shoulder commonly has dirt and gravel on it
    which gives our narrow road bike tires a lot of trouble...
    again we go down. Rain gutters, branches, pot holes, broken
    pavement edges... you know what I mean.

    And I bet most of the 50% is due to simple terror driving
    us into obstacles or hazards when the cars play games
    with our lives. I, too, would rather fall down than be
    struck by a car.

    Quoted message said:

    "The CHP...said right-of-way violations are among the most
    common bike traffic offenses."

    I'd like to be able to review details about these right-of-
    way violations. I'll bet they roll in 4 year olds on
    tricycles here too. I think it tends to skew the
    conclusions. Maybe they should make sure that these deaths
    included only persons of driving age. I'll bet that we
    bicyclists wouldn't agree with a good number of the causes..
    but that is a wild guess. I know that many cops have no idea
    what the laws are concerning bicycles.

    Quoted message said:

    "...drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part
    of the problem."

    Grrrrrrrr.... they mean simply being on the road with them
    is evidence of a dare-devil attitude, so whatever happens to
    us is our fault!

    Quoted message said:

    Cyclist failure to yield to crossing traffic (25%)

    Well... yeah... I have been almost creamed a few times by
    motorists that could have factually stated the same thing.
    However, I don't mean in a legal sense! How many times have
    you had to stand your bike on the front wheel trying to
    avoid someone who comes from behind, who then whips into a
    right-hand turn in front of you? I suppose that could be
    construed as failing to yield. I know I may sound the
    teensiest bit cynical, but I'd like to know the details in
    these cases.

    Quoted message said:

    With two exceptions, wrong-way cycling

    Wrong-way cycling *can* cause accidents... and it can also
    be cited in cases where it was present but had nothing to do
    with causing the accident.

    I also take to the sidewalk on occasion, not often. I do it
    intelligently, being aware of the dangers there. I do it to
    avoid an even greater danger in the street.

    Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a
    valid sample consists of no less than 32 scores.

    This doesn't seem like a big enough base to me either.

    Quoted message said:

    Would you accept an article from a sportswriter who knew
    nothing about sports? Why then accept a column on cycling
    from a writer whose last experience of a bicycle was in
    the 4th grade?

    While this is a good point, your letter may more effectively
    represent cycling interests if you simply stuck to the
    issues and didn't attack the person.

    GeoB

  4. Educated motorist? In California?? Few and far betweem. I am
    about the only person in this area who learned from the 1974
    gas lines; and now enjoy this $2.20, oops. $2.30., oops,
    $2.50. oh the Hell with it (!) imaginary gas crisis; while
    on my Sunday recumbent drive with 'No Particular Place To
    Go' (song).

    We will sit around and pay $6 - 10. a gallon before doing a
    darn thing. Embarrassing that velomobiles, commuting with
    human power, errands (mail, shopping, laundromat, etc.) as
    well as mass transit (pedal power or otherwise) come from
    European history usually.

    I pay through the nose for a gas hog I cannot afford to
    drive with high gas, but no loss- I feel that I *do* own the
    whole damn road! Two abreast or otherwuse. I paid for it!!

    Chris Jordan Santa Cruz, CA.

    "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:


    So, you are going to trust your life to an "educated"
    motorist. Lots of luck on that kind of stupid trust. But I
    am fed up with trying to educate either cyclists or
    motorists, They are both equally stupid and there is no
    solution to the problem. Cyclists will continue to get
    themselves killed forever as long as they are on the road
    with motor vehicles. But have fun arguing about
    it. Your issue is nothing but a dead end - literally!

  5. Quoted post said:

    Originally posted by Alan
    This is a long introduction to the news item excerpted
    below. I apologize for the length, but this one got me a
    little agitated. As you can see, it will be finalized as a
    letter-to-the-editor of the Press Democrat newspaper.

    Here's a classic case of 'blame the victim.' There are
    several misleading statements in this report. Several times
    it states that riding abreast is illegal in California,
    despite the fact that there is no prohibition in CA bicycle
    law against the practice. A cursory Google search takes the
    reader to this page:
    vcbike.orgbikelaw.htm
    by Alan Watchtel. Now I freely admit that I am not a lawyer,
    but I've always thought that if the law didn't specifically
    exclude some action, it was legal and allowable. Have any CA
    cyclists been successfully prosecuted for riding abreast?

    Some excerpts:

    "...many crashes are caused by the cyclists themselves,
    according to the California Highway Patrol." "...the
    greatest danger lies in cars attempting to pass on narrow
    roads, forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting them from the
    rear..." ( Martin Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa
    Cycling Club.) "The CHP...said right-of-way violations are
    among the most common bike traffic offenses." "...cyclists
    should "control" lanes so cars don't try to squeeze by..."
    "...drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part of
    the problem."

    OK, one at a time. First, 'many crashes are caused by the
    cyclists themselves.' It's true that the majority of
    cyclists treated in emergency rooms are there due to simple
    falls. Falls are responsible for 50% of all cycling
    injuries. Collisions with motor vehicles comprise 17% and
    collisions with other cyclists are another 17%. But it's
    implied that most crashes with motor vehicles are the
    cyclist's fault.

    Martin Clinton, president of the Santa Rosa Cycling Club,
    says that the greatest danger is getting hit from the rear.
    Mr. Clinton is misinformed, as hit-from-the-rear collisions
    comprise less than 10% of all bicycle/motor vehicle
    collisions. CHP has a better grasp on the cause of most
    crashes - right-of-way violations - and those occur at
    intersections.

    Cyclist failure to yield to crossing traffic (25%) Wrong-way
    cycling (17%) Cyclist failure to yield when changing lanes
    (13%) Motorist's left turn (8%) Sidewalk cycling (7%)
    Motorist's right turn (5%) Motorist's restart from stop sign
    (4%) (Source: Effective Cycling by J. Forester)

    With two exceptions, wrong-way cycling and a cyclist failing
    to yield when changing lanes, all of these crashes involve
    one vehicle crossing another vehicle's path, i.e. an
    intersection, regardless of whether that's on the roadway
    itself or on an adjacent sidewalk. Every driveway or parking
    lot ramp represents an intersection, particularly to a
    sidewalk cyclist. When compared to the less than 10% figure
    for hit-from-behind crashes, it's obvious that intersections
    are a much higher risk.

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a valid
    sample consists of no less than 32 scores. It's hardly
    scientific to base such broad statements as the 'cyclists
    are largely at fault' on such tiny samples as is done in
    this article. It's bad science. Further, if it's true that
    in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003, the rider was at fault,
    and that in 2002 riders were blamed in nine of the 22
    crashes, the evidence would seem to indicate that the
    results are inconclusive. Regardless, the sample size is too
    small to offer good predictions.

    Two contradictory thoughts: A cyclist should take the lane,
    thereby controlling traffic to some extent, and motorists
    see such actions as daredevil stunts performed by people who
    are oblivious of other road users. This article misses an
    opportunity to educate motorists about a cyclist taking the
    lane for his own safety, preferring to pander to the fear-
    mongering tactics of some motorists who see themselves as
    the only legitimate road users.

    This article merely fuels the animosity on the road, giving
    motorists the false impression that cyclists are somehow at
    fault for most accidents, and implying that motorists are
    blameless. Please, before printing something this
    irresponsible again, pry the doughnut out of your
    journalist's fist and enroll him in an League of American
    Bicyclists Road 1 course. Would you accept an article from a
    sportswriter who knew nothing about sports? Why then accept
    a column on cycling from a writer whose last experience of a
    bicycle was in the 4th grade?

    Well said Alan,

    See my posted reply on BROL's message board "Commuting/Car-free" under "Another look at the cager/bike issue" headed with "cagers and susi soccermom".

    Bike "just another moving target" bob

    ========Article Excerpts Follow=============

    Taking risks on the road

    CHP says crashes like last week's fatality happen regularly
    -- and it's often not the driver's fault April 18, 2004

    By PAUL PAYNE THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

    ...The clash between cyclists and drivers came into focus
    Easter Sunday when two people riding scenic Highway 12 near
    Oakmont were hit by a suspected drunken driver. One cyclist
    was killed and another seriously injured, raising fears
    about whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    Although many cyclists recount tales of bad driving on
    perilous stretches of road, many crashes are caused by
    the cyclists themselves, according to the California
    Highway Patrol.

    ...In 2002, there were 22 crashes involving bicycles,
    including one fatality, which was deemed the fault of the
    rider. The number of crashes rose to 33 in 2003 with one
    death. The rider who was killed was ruled to be intoxicated,
    King said. And in 22 of the 33 accidents, the rider was at
    fault, she said. In 2002, riders were blamed in nine of the
    22 crashes.

    "Obviously, a collision of this type is more serious for
    the rider," King said. "And more often the bicyclists are
    at fault."

    That wasn't the case a week ago. South Bay triathletes Alan
    Liu, 31, and Jill Mason, 26, were riding through the Valley
    of the Moon when they were struck from behind by Harvey
    Hereford, 69, of Santa Rosa.

    Liu was killed and Mason was critically injured. Hereford
    was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and vehicular
    manslaughter.

    ...Bikers can get in trouble when they break traffic laws,
    like riding on the wrong side of the street, but the
    greatest danger lies in cars attempting to pass on narrow
    roads, forcing bikes to shoulders or hitting them from the
    rear, Clinton said.

    Instead, cyclists should "control" lanes so cars don't try
    to squeeze by, he said.

    That technique maddens some motorists but makes bikes more
    visible and can save lives, Santa Rosa cyclist Gary
    Segraves said.

    ...But drivers said bikers with daredevil attitudes are part
    of the problem.

    ...In fact, it's illegal for bikes to ride side-by-side, CHP
    officers said.

    According to the state vehicle code, the only times bicycles
    can leave the right-hand side of a lane is to pass, turn
    left or avoid a road hazard.

    Groups of bicycles should always be riding single-file.

    And they must obey all traffic laws, like stopping at
    stop signs.

    ...The CHP, which handles bike accident outside cities, said
    right-of-way violations are among the most common bike
    traffic offenses.

    ..."We certainly don't want motorists thinking they
    can run people off the road," King said. "But at same
    time bicyclists need to realize they can't be two or
    three abreast."

    Staff Writer Randi Rossmann contributed to this report.

    You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 521-5250 or
    [email hidden].

    tinyurl.com272zs

    or

    pressdemocrat.com18bicycle b1em
    pireb.html

    --

    alan

    Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the
    "Daily Oklahoman."

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    <snip> were hit by a suspected drunken driver. One
    cyclist was killed and another seriously injured,
    raising fears about whether cars and bikes can safely
    co-exist.

    AAaarrgg! If this was a pedestrian or another car hit by
    the drunk driver, they would focus on the dangers of drunk-
    driving. Here they ignore it!

    Quoted message said:

    whether cars and bikes can safely co-exist.

    They should have said whether drunk-drivers and bikes can
    safely co-exist.

    GeoB, you have really got that right. Drunken drivers are
    almost the heart of the problem. We have been waging a war
    against drunken drivers like forever just like we have been
    waging a war against drugs like forever and we are no more
    succeeding at one than we are the other. Drunken drivers we
    will always have with us and they are the main menace on the
    road for us cyclists.

    I have been told that if you get stopped for drunken driving
    you will end up with a fine of well over a thousands
    dollars. I think there are just as many drunken drivers on
    the road now as there ever was. It is a fact of life we will
    just have to live (die) with.

    There are several elderly folks here who have had their
    bicycle riding privileges revoked for being drunk on their
    bicycles. Have you ever hear of anything so crazy - I mean
    riding your bike drunk? Sometimes I think I have lived
    long enough and I won't mind leaving this crazy world when
    my time is up. But I would like to do it at home in my own
    bed and not out on the road being run over by a drunken
    driver. [...]

    Quoted message said:

    Wrong-way cycling *can* cause accidents... and it can also
    be cited in cases where it was present but had nothing to
    do with causing the accident.

    Wrong way cycling is really quite dangerous. It seems to
    have a very confusing effect on motorists. And then there is
    the effect of other cyclists riding the right way
    encountering you when you are riding the wrong way. It is a
    total mess. Pedestrians should always walk facing traffic,
    but cyclists should always ride with traffic. The police do
    not seem to enforce these road rules like they used to when
    I was a kid.

    Quoted message said:

    I also take to the sidewalk on occasion, not often. I do
    it intelligently, being aware of the dangers there. I do
    it to avoid an even greater danger in the street.

    When traffic becomes totally impossible I take to the
    sidewalk and go very slowly always giving pedestrians every
    courtesy. If necessary I will quite often walk my bicycle on
    the sidewalk.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  7. "Christopher Jordan" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message -"]news:[email hidden]-
    le.com... [...]

    Quoted message said:

    I pay through the nose for a gas hog I cannot afford to
    drive with high gas, but no loss- I feel that I *do* own
    the whole damn road! Two abreast or otherwuse. I paid
    for it!!

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on the
    highway as long as there is no traffic coming behind you,
    but when there is traffic it is just common courtesy to ride
    single file so as to facilitate the traffic. What often
    happens is that cyclists get talking to one another and do
    not keep track of traffic developments. When I am riding on
    the highway, whether alone or with others, I am checking my
    rear view mirror almost constantly. I want to be out of the
    traffic lane as much as possible when traffic is approaching
    me from behind.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  8. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:09 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Drunken drivers we will always have with us

    Not if we grow a pair and actually punish them.

    First offense: your new title for life becomes "Pedestrian"
    or "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-brid if you must,
    but stay on the MUP.

    Second offense: your eyes are poked out of your head and
    you get a white cane for a souvenir. Damn few
    recidivists, I'd say.

  9. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:00:21 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on the
    highway as long as there is no traffic coming behind you,

    I ALWAYS ride single file.

    Of course, I always ride alone, for reasons that would
    become apparent if you really got to know me.

  10. Hmmm...I used to to work with a guy with a nickname of
    "Zippy". That you, PZ? If so...I'm sure you recognize
    my name...

    rr

    Zippy the Pinhead said:
    Edward Dolan said:

    It is perfectly OK to ride two or even three abreast on
    the highway as long as there is no traffic coming
    behind you,

    I ALWAYS ride single file.

    Of course, I always ride alone, for reasons that would
    become apparent if you really got to know me.

  11. On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:50:08 -0700, Randy Rhine <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Hmmm...I used to to work with a guy with a nickname of
    "Zippy". That you, PZ? If so...I'm sure you recognize
    my name...

    No, that was someone else.

  12. Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a
    valid sample consists of no less than 32 scores.

    Depends upon the magnitude of the effect you're testing: if
    that magnitude is large, then a small sample will reveal it;
    but if it's small, you need a big sample to detect it. This
    falls under the topic of "statistical power of a test",
    which is the probability that you'll find what you're
    testing for.

    Quoted message said:

    if it's true that in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003, the
    rider was at fault, and that in 2002 riders were blamed
    in nine of the 22 crashes, the evidence would seem to
    indicate that the results are inconclusive.

    Not entirely. Here's what the data display looks like:

    year . rider blamed . rider not blamed 2002 . . . 9 . . . .
    . . . 13 2003 . . . 22 . . . . . . . 11

    Over the two years displayed, "rider blamed" went up by more
    than double, and "rider not blamed" went down only slightly,
    which does look like a non-random effect.

    A two-by-two table of categorical data from a small sample
    like this is amenable to the Fisher Exact Test, which in
    this case yields a p-value of 0.054 , not quite significant
    at the magic 0.05 level, but suggestive that the data
    pattern may be a time-dependent effect. A statistician would
    want more data about the history and details of such
    accidents before deciding whether this is true.

  13. "LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    message news:uSmhc.65832$U83.6388@fed1read03...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    From what I dimly recall of my Statistics 101 class, a
    valid sample consists of no less than 32 scores.

    Depends upon the magnitude of the effect you're testing:
    if that magnitude is large, then a small sample will
    reveal it; but if it's small, you need a big sample to
    detect it. This falls under the topic of "statistical
    power of a test", which is the probability that you'll
    find what you're testing for.

    Quoted message said:

    if it's true that in 22 of the 33 accidents in 2003,
    the rider was at fault, and that in 2002 riders were
    blamed in nine of the 22 crashes, the evidence would
    seem to indicate that the results are inconclusive.

    Not entirely. Here's what the data display looks like:

    year . rider blamed . rider not blamed 2002 . . . 9 . . .
    . . . . 13 2003 . . . 22 . . . . . . . 11

    Over the two years displayed, "rider blamed" went up by
    more than double, and "rider not blamed" went down only
    slightly, which does look like a non-random effect.

    A two-by-two table of categorical data from a small
    sample like this is amenable to the Fisher Exact Test,
    which in this case yields a p-value of 0.054 , not quite
    significant at the magic 0.05 level, but suggestive that
    the data pattern may be a time-dependent effect. A
    statistician would want more data about the history and
    details of such accidents before deciding whether this
    is true.

    I have come to the conclusion after a lifetime of having
    to make sense out of statistics that there is not one
    person in a thousand who understands what the hell
    statisticians are talking about. This is due primarily to
    the fact that statisticians can't explain anything so that
    an ordinary person of average intelligence can understand
    what it is they are talking about. Much of science falls
    into this same dilemma, but there are popularizers of
    science that can explain it to the rest of us so that we
    can understand it. But there is no one who will bother to
    do this yeoman duty for the statisticians. As a result, no
    one ever thinks statistics is valid. Is it science or is
    it magic? Who knows?

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  14. On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:04:27 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    This is due primarily to the fact that statisticians can't
    explain anything so that an ordinary person of average
    intelligence can understand what it is they are talking
    about. Much of science falls into this same dilemma, but
    there are popularizers of science that can explain it to
    the rest of us so that we can understand it.

    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no
    simpler. They just launched another satellite to try further
    to understand another utterance of the man who said this.

    Quoted message said:

    But there is no one who will bother to do this yeoman
    duty for the statisticians. As a result, no one ever
    thinks statistics is valid. Is it science or is it magic?
    Who knows?

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to
    cling to magical thinking and to reject probabilistic
    thinking and risk assessment. Scared [censored] about
    radium in the basement, with a cigarette hanging out of
    their mouth.

  15. "Zippy the Pinhead" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Edward Dolan said:

    This is due primarily to the fact that statisticians
    can't explain anything so that an ordinary person


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    average intelligence can understand what it is they are
    talking about.


    Much

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    of science falls into this same dilemma, but there are
    popularizers of science that can explain it to the rest
    of us so that we can understand


    it.

    Quoted message said:


    Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no
    simpler. They just launched another satellite to try
    further to understand another utterance of the man who
    said this.

    Quoted message said:

    But there is no one who will bother to do this yeoman
    duty for the statisticians. As a result, no one ever
    thinks statistics is valid. Is it science or is it magic?
    Who knows?

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to
    cling to magical thinking and to reject probabilistic
    thinking and risk assessment. Scared [censored] about
    radium in the basement, with a cigarette hanging out of
    their mouth.

    Zippy, when I was at University many years ago in my long
    lost youth I wanted to study science (geology), but I was
    totally turned off by the science professors. I knew that
    they knew their subjects, but they came across as almost
    illiterate. They could not seem to explain the simplest
    things. And they could never make any of it the least bit
    interesting, let alone exciting. So I fled to the liberal
    arts and science (and statistics) has forever remained a
    mystery to me. I blame the scientists for not being better
    teachers. I love reading popular science but I have hardly
    ever enjoyed reading a real scientist.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  16. Quoted message said:

    First offense: your new title for life becomes
    "Pedestrian" or "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-brid
    if you must, but stay on the MUP.

    An irate motorist who had been ticketed was facing the judge
    in a small-town courthouse. After being found guilty and
    being fined, he stalked over to the side, to the cashier's
    window and paid his fine. He was handed a receipt. He loudly
    snarled, "And what am I supposed to do with THIS??". The
    judge calmly amswered, "Save it, get three of them, you get
    a bicycle".

  17. Quoted message said:

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to
    cling to magical thinking and to reject probabilistic
    thinking and risk assessment.

    Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid
    thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy
    answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people
    more than having to think. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there
    should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't
    we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the
    problem solve itself?"

    Quoted message said:

    Scared [censored] about radium in the basement, with a
    cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

    That would be Radon gas I think.

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    First offense: your new title for life becomes
    "Pedestrian" or "Passenger". Not "Cyclist". Get a DUI-
    brid if you must, but stay on the MUP.

    An irate motorist who had been ticketed was facing the
    judge in a small-town courthouse. After being found guilty
    and being fined, he stalked over to the side, to the
    cashier's window and paid his fine. He was handed a
    receipt. He loudly snarled, "And what am I supposed to do
    with THIS??". The judge calmly amswered, "Save it, get
    three of them, you get a bicycle".

    GeoB, it is really funny here in my town. Most of the
    cyclists I see about the town are Hispanics who have lost
    their driver's license due to drunken driving. They would
    never in a million years be on a bicycle otherwise. But
    biking beats walking - which we all discovered very early in
    life when we were paper boys delivering newspapers. The
    older I get, the more I realize there is nothing new under
    the sun when it comes to human behavior.

    Apparently what is happening in China now is that everyone
    is chucking their bicycles for cars. Those still on bicycles
    are now claiming it is too dangerous to be biking on the
    roads with all those cars. I think this is where I came in
    several posts ago and I think this is where I will leave.
    Like I said, nothing new under the sun!

    --
    Regards,

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

  19. (GeoB) said:
    Quoted message said:

    Scared [censored] about radium in the basement, with a
    cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

    That would be Radon gas I think.

    You're right, but the day before I read that, I had listened
    to an entire segment on a radio talk show about "radium" in
    the basement.

    "Iceberg, Weinberg, what's the difference?"

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The problem is that people (at least Americans) want to
    cling to magical thinking and to reject probabilistic
    thinking and risk assessment.

    Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid
    thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy
    answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some
    people more than having to think. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    On the other hand, I greatly admire those who can cut the to
    the quick of a problem with only a few words. Those who can
    take a complex problem and then simplify it so it can be
    understood by one and all invariably turn out to be the
    smartest persons in the room. Those who only know how to
    complicate an issue are mostly obfuscating and do not really
    have a good grasp of the issue. I think Bush II, like Truman
    before him, knows how to cut to the quick of a problem and
    then state it simply so that all can understand (except dyed-in-the-
    wool liberals of course).

    Quoted message said:

    "The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying
    there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but
    why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything
    and let the problem solve itself?"

    It is a universal problem where ever there are humans. Other
    nations are even more stupid than we are. All of Europe is
    more stupid and the second and third word are stupid beyond
    belief. Educating people out of their stupidity is the
    hardest thing we ever undertake to do - and we have to do it
    with every generation. It is an unending task.

    --
    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.