[email protected] writes:
> On Aug 4, 2:26 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > [email protected] writes:
> > >
> >
> > > Let's look at the conclusion of the paper:
> >
> > > "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur
> > > greater risk than those on the roadway (on average
> > > 1.8 times as great), most likely because of
> > > blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way
> > > sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and
> > > sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence
> > > of wrong-way travel."
> >
> > Krygowski, you are an idiot - that factor of 1.8 includes cyclists
> > riding in both directions and the ones going in the opposite direction
> > as traffic have an elevated risk of significantly above 1.8. Furthermore,
> > the factor of 1.8 understates the risk - it is actually over a factor
> > of 2. The paper clearly states that wrong-way riding is far more
> > prevalent on sidewalks than on the adjacent roadway, and that is where
> > people are getting into trouble.
>
> As the paper says, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths
> adjacent to a roadway are ... much less safe." Yes, wrong-way riding
> is more likely on sidewalks. But that's not the only hazard. You
> seem to be pretending that other sidewalk-cycling hazards are
> negligible. They are not, and your misinformation endangers people
> who don't know better - people like "Donquijote," for example.
More lies and dissembling from Krygowski. What the paper actually
says is, "Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a
roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road,
but much less safe," but that is completely consistent with what I
posted because the risk factor is mostly due to riding against the
flow of traffic, which is more prevalent on sidewalks and paths than
on roadways. So, the problem is not the sidewalks per se but how
bicyclists use them, and there is no good way of preventing wrong way
riding on them. As the paper stated, "The paths are signed 'Bicycles
May Use Sidewalk,' and their use is optional. In accordance with a
local ordinance these sidewalks are further signed for one-way bicycle
travel, although this prohibition is often ignored and rarely
enforced."
I clearly stated that the data indicated that the risk ratio for those
riding on the sidewalk in the same direction as traffic versus those
riding on the rroadway in the same direction as traffic is 1.2 to 1.3,
far lower than the 1.8 number that Krygowski fixates on, which itself
is significantly lower than the risk of riding the wrong way, which is
over a factor of 2.
BTW, the study I quoted measured accident rates, but did not control
for cyclist skill levels. Since I live in the area, I can add a
couple of personal observations - the really skilled people more
or less stay on the road, not the sidewalk, so the sidewalk risk
numbers are biased to some extent because of that - to the extent
that higher skill levels lead to reduced accident rates. A few
of the sidewalk cyclists obviously go way too fast for conditions
(ignoring red lights as well). Aside from the wrong-way issue and
a few adrenaline junkies, cyclists using the sidwalk seem to be
mostly behaving sensibly - riding at speeds appropriate for the
conditions - and the accident statistics bear that out.
I once saw a car bike collision on one of these roads - the cyclist
was riding the wrong way on the sidewalk fairly slowly. A driver had
come to a complete stop at a stop sign and was looking left to creep
forwards enough to get a view at traffic on the cross street. The
intersection was not a right-angle one, and the cyclist was
approaching slightly from the rear as a result. Just as the cyclist
entered the crosswalk, the car crept forward and they hit at very slow
speeds. The cyclist got a foot and hand down to break the fall, and
the front wheel was badly damaged, but there were no injuries beyond
perhaps a scraped palm. The accident was clearly the cyclists fault -
the sidewalk the cyclist was using had signs on it at the time
forbidding riding on the sidewalk in that direction. Had the cyclist
been going in the same direction as traffic, the driver would at least
have had a chance to spot the cyclist as the cyclist would not have
been behind the driver's head.
> > > cycling over 13 times as dangerous as road cycling, right? I don't
> > > think even your cherry picking is going to make that one go away.
> >
> > There was no "cherry picking" - that is simply one of your lies. If
> > they got a factor of 13, you'll find that wrong-way riding was a
> > significant contributing factor to it.
>
> But NOT the only contributing factor!
So you claim, but why should anyone believe you when you never bothered to
provide a URL to the paper, if there even is one. The one I provided BTW
was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
> Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending
> that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and
> pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse.
Another lie from Krygowski since I pretended no such thing - I stated
quite clearly that the average factor of 1.8 was due to the large
number of people who ride in the wrong direction, which is even more
risky.
> Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk.
> There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are
> times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the
> situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way,
> ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways
> and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap
> wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub-
> standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists
> when the cyclist crosses a road, etc.
ROTFLMAO - you wouldn't have a risk factor of 1.2 to 1.3 over riding
in the correct direction on the roadway if it was as bad as you claim,
and that number (from the paper) probably overstates the risk because
it includes hormone-crazed teenagers who go way too fast for
conditions and it includes people who most likely are significantly
less skilled than those who ride on the roadway. The authors simply
had no way from the accident-report data and observations they made of
measuring skill level.
Also, A driveway and parking-lot entrance is basically just another
intersection, and those are included in the study. One of the streets,
El Camino Real, is a 6 lane road with lots of businesse, driveways,
and blind intersections. Yet cyclists are not dropping like flies
because most on the sidwalk are going at a speed appropriate for
the conditions.
> If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need
> to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the
> common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a
> delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion.
Liar. I gave a fair account of the data, providing the numbers
that backed up everything I said, and that is hardly "purposely
contribut[ing] to that delusion." As is typical of Krygowski, he
is not satisfied with showing data fairly but has some deep seated
need to lie about the data in a silly attempt to push whatever he
is touting at the moment.
> Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that
> you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger
> novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against
> you.
Projection - all the distortion is coming from the general direction of
Frank Krygoswki, one of the most persistent liars on usenet.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
