drivers speeding away

nash said:

Hello fellow environment guardians.
This came to my attention when reading clean air tips at www.aircare.ca

"Avoid rapid acceleration (putting the pedal to the metal) which can produce
more than 40 times the emissions of normal driving."

That means when ever a driver gets [censored] from seeing a cyclists and
speeds up to get away from you like you are vermin he is polluting the air
40X more than if you were not there in front of him.
I know it IS there fault but that puts my world out of wack cause I believed
I was improving air quality and now it is a few degrees less so.

Bicycle-car interaction aside...

Such acceleration is indeed a huge contributor to air pollution. This is
one reason for using roundabouts instead of 4-way stops or traffic lights.

Quoted message said:

Also, idling more that 30 seconds is worse than shutting off the
motor
and starting up again. I guesss some intersections they could get
everyone shutting off the motor then. haha

I believe this is required in parts of Europe (Switzerland?)

Note that hybrid cars shut the engine off while stopped, and start
automagically when the accelerator is pressed.

Matt O.

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 24 Jan 2007 12:34:37 -0800, "Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought a couple of car manufactures had already made cars that do
this automatically, shut off the engine after 20 seconds and restart
once you put your foot on the accelerator. I think Audi made one.

Quoted message said:

My Prius does it, but the hybrids aren't exactly examples of ordinary
gas driven cars.

With over half a million Priuses sold, they're becoming ordinary.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1. I know this because
of my particular background and experience.

You must believe that 2 is safer than 3 if you think that
plugging into the system is more important to cyclist safety than
awareness. In which case the beginners you teach are
ill-served.

Robert,

I agree with much of what you say, as well as with much of what Frank
says. You are both right. However, you assume that your 4 categories
above are absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule
following are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
randomly?

Wayne

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
of the road.

Quoted message said:

That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
riding.

Quoted message said:

You just repeated my statement, which you labeled
'fearmongering.' Your statement is just as much
fearmongering as mine.

It reads that way _only_ because you distorted my meaning by moving my
following paragraph. Here it is, restored:

"> > But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
"experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
fearmongering."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
pretty much according to the rules of the road.

Quoted message said:

Exactly. And how many
of them took EC classes or read the book? Very small
percentage. How are you going to serve these cyclists--
by teaching them the importance of riding according
to the rules of the road, which they already do? Brilliant!

First, the courses or book have never claimed to be the only way to
learn vehicular cycling; just the fastest and best.

But I've had many very experienced cyclists in my classes, including
coast-to-coast tourists and utility cyclists with decades of
experience. They invariably tell me they learned a lot, and it was
obvious from watching them. As one example, a woman locally famous
for her utility cycling, her long distance tours and her international
cycling learned a _lot_ about emergency stops and turns.

And it's interesting that, despite nearly 40 years of city riding,
recreational riding and international touring, she'd never needed to
learn those skills. Why? Because despite your fearmongering, proper
riding is simply not very dangerous!

Quoted message said:

These car-bike collisions tend to occur at the
confluence of driver mistake and _cyclist inattention_.

Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
party, and yes, inattention is a mistake. But it is certainly not the
only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
vehicular cycling principle.

Quoted message said:

Experienced riders minimize these occurrences through
increasing and maintaining their level of awareness, not
by increasing and maintaining their level of rule-following.

As usual, you oversimplify. There are many tactics beyond mere rule
following that expert cyclists can use. Increasing "awareness" is
hardly the only one. And those tactics - _including_ awareness - are
a standard part of vehicular cycling, covered in books and pamphlets
and videos, taught in classes.

Quoted message said:

And messengers
typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.

I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
through the eyes of a bike messenger.

Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
on their bikes in city traffic. If they are to make an adequate
living, they're forced to routinely violate traffic laws. Their long
hours of practice give them skills to (generally) get away with
illegal tactics, and their "adrenalin junkie" attitudes help them
enjoy the risk they impose on themselves. I can see how such a
character would feel that rules are unimportant, and traffic is
dangerous.

But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. Instead, they're going
to be able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
nighmares car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
minor scrapes.

[Ah! My paragraph is below, hidden from above, so as to remove
context!]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
"experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
fearmongering.

If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
point in a bike-related injury.

That's fearmongering. "Not unlikely?" "Some substantial fashion?"
There are roughly 15 million miles ridden between bike fatalities.
Dedicated bike commuters ride 11 years between crashes causing either
as little as $50 equipment damage, or about $110 medical costs.
Despite your fearmongering, cycling is safer than walking.

Quoted message said:

Car-bike collisions are the worst and can have devastating consequences.

More fearmongering. "Can have..." sure. And car-pedestrian
collisions are worse. And car-motorcycle collisions are terrible too,
and about 40,000 people die each year from car-car crashes. Despite
the _possiblity_ of "devastating consequences," cycling is actually
extremely safe.

Quoted message said:

Avoiding them is the most important task we have.

Fearmongering. Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
lightning...

There are hazards in the world. We behave properly and try to avoid
them. But paranoia and fearmongering are signs of psychological
problems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked.
Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked.

Quoted message said:

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
occupant deaths?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
awareness."

Quoted message said:

Such pap.

Quoted message said:

Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
cycling is plenty safe.

Quoted message said:

You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.

Quoted message said:

The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I'm just not a very clear writer sometimes.
You keep repeating the straw man that I would tell
beginners to forget about traffic laws. Setting aside for
a moment that nearly all beginners would be able to
figure the basics of traffic cycling (ride according to
basic rules with traffic not facing it) for themselves...

But of course, the 50% of dead cyclists who did _not_ figure out the
traffic laws should be temporarily ignored, right?

Quoted message said:

And don't kneejerk your way to the conclusion
that recognizing awareness as the key variable means
completely writing off the utility of rule-following, because
it doesn't.

I'm glad to see you don't want to "completely" ignore rule-following.
Perhaps we're making progress!

Quoted message said:

I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1.

If you can absorb the fact that #4 is what's taught in vehicular
cycling books and classes, we'll both save a lot of time on this
discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are
overlooked.
Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars
are
overlooked.

Quoted message said:

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths
in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
occupant deaths?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Only because there are less bicyclists than peds or cars to overlook.
Percent is the operable word.

nash said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Cyclists are] "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are
overlooked.
Less often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars
are
overlooked.

Do you honestly believe that?Yes! The number of pedestrian, motorcyclist, and car occupant deaths

in the US each year absolutely dwarf the number of bicyclist deaths.
When you have only 800 bike deaths versus roughly 5000 pedestrian
deaths, roughly 2500 motorcycist deaths, and roughly 40,000 car
occupant deaths?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Only because there are less bicyclists than peds or cars to overlook.
Percent is the operable word.

No, not "only because." (And you should note that Robert's claim that
cyclists are "often overlooked" had no hint of a per-mile or per-hour
component.)

If you dig up the best per-mile or per-hour data, you'll find that
cycling is safer than transportational walking by both measures. It's
also safer by far than riding a motorcycle. Cycling is probably more
dangerous than driving per mile, but many countries' statistics
indicate it's as safe or safer than driving per hour.

And even the data that shows cycling more dangerous per mile than
driving a car is really just comparing infinitesmals. Does it matter
to you if your risk of fatality on the bike is one fatality per 10
million bike miles, or one fatality per 100 million bike miles? How
many years will it take you to ride 10 million miles?

The general public and the cycling public have become convinced that
cycling is very dangerous - and people like Robert take perverse
pleasure in reinforcing that belief. But the dangers of cycling are
greatly exaggerated, and are in fact less than the dangers of many
activities we happily engage in.

Furthermore, the best way to greatly improve cycling's statistics is
to get cyclists to stop doing the things that cause the greatest
problem. In other words 1) get them to obey existing laws, and 2) get
them to learn to use their right to the road. These aren't the only
possible routes to improvement, but they are the places to start.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Jan 25, 11:41 am, [email hidden] wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, [email hidden] (Tom Keats) wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.

Quoted message said:

> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!

Quoted message said:

> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> the drivers keep them safe.

Quoted message said:

The implication you state is only in your own mind.

Quoted message said:

Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
to themselves.

[Proper attribution restored at this point]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
sublimate down to that.

I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
predictable.

So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"

You need to understand that my statement "be predictable" is in the
context of responding to Robert. That's not the vocabulary emphasized
in class nor in the various books and websites that espouse vehicular
cycling;

Actually, I'll contend that it indeed /is/ from
that very vocabulary.

A finger-wagging, mother-hennish admonishment to
"be predictable" -- WTH does ~that~ mean?!

But put it in terms of ROW, and it makes sense.

Also note that a lot of drivers will not recognize
cyclists' rights of way, so you'd better not rely
on it to avoid incidents -- ROW is given, not taken.

Quoted message said:

it's merely the way it was brought up in this particular
thread.

To be fair, it's my fault. I hijacked nash's original post.
The word "predictable" came up, and I was already enmeshed
in another discussion about how cyclists should be somehow
"predictable". So I guess I got a little set-off, like
nitroglycerin.

Quoted message said:

In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."

Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
that a cabin cruiser can't.

Quoted message said:

I also quote whoever
said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
drivers of vehicles."

Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.

Sometimes I can do stuff that cars can't. Again,
everybody's happy and unscathed.

Quoted message said:

But I also express that concept in other ways, especially when I've had
pre-driving kids in my classes. One advantage of a class over an
Internet posting is that you can explain (and demonstrate) concepts in
many ways.

Yet it still boils down to the basic rules of ROW.

That's really what it's all about.

If there's somebody around to yield ROW to, I do.
If not ... it's Open Road, and my discretion.
No "attitude" directed toward anybody. It's just
when you can politely go, you might as well go.
As long as you're confidently aware enough to go.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."

Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
that a cabin cruiser can't.

Of course. But let's get the context of my remark right. What do you
say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
"Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
don't know."

The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
the discussion.)

We all know there are exceptions. You can't walk a car down a
sidewalk. You can't make a two-stage pedestrian-style left turn in a
car. But the "Same rules" concept eliminates a lot of weird ideas
people may have, and does it all at once.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also quote whoever
said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
drivers of vehicles."

Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.

Yep. I'm not claiming you must always assert every right. But most
often, you'll do best if you act like a legal vehicle and just follow
the rules. That usually lets traffic flow most smoothly, too.

(Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike."

Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
that a cabin cruiser can't.

Of course. But let's get the context of my remark right. What do you
say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
"Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
don't know."

I'd suggest he should default to the good ol' ROW rules
that he already knows about -- rules that have existed
since the Roman iters.

Quoted message said:

The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
the discussion.)

In my jurisdiction, official cyclist Emergency Responders are
allowed to ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalk, and
break all kinds of other laws in the course of their duties.

Sure, the /rules/ are the same.

Quoted message said:

We all know there are exceptions. You can't walk a car down a
sidewalk.

I've seen that done.

Quoted message said:

You can't make a two-stage pedestrian-style left turn in a
car.

I've seen that done, too (rolling start w/ a dead engine.)

I also know of some local designated bike routes where a
section might be blocked-off to one direction of traffic.
But the wrong-way drivers will cut through there anyways.
And y'know what? As long as they don't hurt anybody, I
don't mind too much.

Quoted message said:

But the "Same rules" concept eliminates a lot of weird ideas
people may have, and does it all at once.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also quote whoever
said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
drivers of vehicles."

Sometimes I derive no advantage by asserting my rights.
In those times, I have no qualms about letting drivers
go by, uninterferred-with by me. They don't hit me, I
don't hit them. Everybody's happy and unscathed.

Yep. I'm not claiming you must always assert every right. But most
often, you'll do best if you act like a legal vehicle and just follow
the rules. That usually lets traffic flow most smoothly, too.

I find what works best is to just sociably interact with 'em.

Quoted message said:

(Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉

I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.
It gets it over with faster, and lets everybody else go
without being held-up by other people's stoopid arguments.
I'm tired of pointing up and yelling: "Hey! /I'm/ the
one with the stop sign! Just f****'n go so I can go next!
And let the world around us at this intersection go, too."

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bikes are not cars. bikes are more like canoes, and
cars are like cabin cruisers. A canoe can do some stuff
that a cabin cruiser can't.

Quoted message said:

Of course. But let's get the context of my remark right. What do you
say to, for example, the brand new bike cop in my village who asked me
"Um... so, which side of the road am I supposed to ride on? I really
don't know."

I'd suggest he should default to the good ol' ROW rules
that he already knows about -- rules that have existed
since the Roman iters.

And you are allowed that choice. My choice was to explain it by
reference to rules for cars, instead of Roman chariots. My way worked
fine. Perhaps yours would too...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The quick answer is that the rules of the road are almost entirely the
same for cars and bikes. Or: "If you wouldn't do it in a car, you
probably shouldn't do it on a bike." (That would have prevented him
from passing my car by riding facing traffic, which is what started
the discussion.)

In my jurisdiction, official cyclist Emergency Responders are
allowed to ride against traffic, ride on the sidewalk, and
break all kinds of other laws in the course of their duties.

We all know that things are different for "Emergency Responders."
That wasn't the question at the time. When this cop passed me on the
right at an intersection, there was no emergency, and I was the only
visible motor vehicle. He asked me about Rule #1 for normally riding
a bike on the road, because he did not know the answer. Keep the red
herrings in the fish bucket, please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉

I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.

Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
I flow better within it.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taken as a whole, car-bike collisions happen due to mistakes by either
party, and yes, inattention is a mistake. But it is certainly not the
only one. For one example, riding far enough left to avoid door
zones, to prevent unsafe passing, and to maximize visibility is a
tactic that helps prevent driver mistakes. Which is why it's a key
vehicular cycling principle.

I know--classic stuff. Amazing how you guys always list these
great reasons to ride left, but always seem to leave out the
most important reasons. It's like there is a chunk of your
brain missing.

Since I've explained at least 15 times that the "awareness" you count
as "most important" is NOT left out, I suppose I should ignore that
idee fixe of yours. Obviously, you're not going to understand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
through the eyes of a bike messenger.

You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.

I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
rules of the road are not important ("worthless [censored]," I think you
said) and fear and hyper-awareness are needed to overcome the terrible
danger of bicycling on the road. I think the bike messenger thing
might be behind it.

Quoted message said:

But, first of all, I actually became a messenger relatively
late in my life as a bicyclist.

Not unusual.

Quoted message said:

And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
anyway.

Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/

Quoted message said:

Even rookie messengers in their first few years
probably do more 'vehicular cycling' than 90% of self-styled
'vehicular cyclists' accomplish in their entire lives.

Well, by God, since you're so opposed to "vehicular cycling," you'd
better get them to stop!! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Typical bike messengers spend about 40 hours per week rushing around
on their bikes in city traffic.

Call it 30.

OK, I'll accept your quibble.

Quoted message said:

About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
Sorry, Charlie.

:-) As I pointed out, a messenger's priority set and perspective is
far different from a normal cyclist.

Yes, if I wanted advice on how to run red lights and survive, I'd
consult with a bike messenger. In fact, I promise to write to you
first!

But if I want to move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws, I think I'll pay more attention to
the 50 to 100 experts who have made the most significant contributions
to the understanding and teaching of Vehicular Cycling. And as far as
I know, there's not much overlap between those groups.

Quoted message said:

Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
as evidence that cycling is massively safe.

Really? Odd, the results of the survey at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
ergonomics/bike/
seem to dispute your claims. So - got data?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that situation doesn't apply to any but a tiny minority of
cyclists. For anyone else, from raw beginners to long distance
tourists to dedicated commuters and utility cyclists, there are great
benefits to just riding with legal competence. If they don't run that
light, they're not going to lose a $10 bonus. ...

So many myths about messengers out there...
But messengers are still required, several times
per day as part of the job, for a variety of reasons,
to haul ass through traffic and break laws. They do
it because they signed up for it and that's what
they are being asked/required to do...

Whatever, Robert. That's just another quibble on your part.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[Ordinary bike commuters are]
able to relax a bit until the green comes, they can skip the
nighmares car crashes, they don't have to worry about traffic tickets,
they can take their time negotiating lane changes, etc. And once they
learn to ride properly, they hardly ever get injured in even a minor
way. Remember the Moritz survey of commuters? 11 years between even
minor scrapes.

No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year.

<sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, he
defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
"serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.

He also defined "seeking medical treatment" as "serious." But the
median cost of medical treatment was just over $150. It's pretty
obvious that we're talking about a median injury equal to road rash
cleaned out at the ER. Even a broken finger incurs much more expense
than a mere $150.

Of course, we've been over this many, many times. And of course,
you'll continue to distort the facts so you can hang on to your
"bicycling is dangerous" viewpoint.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
point in a bike-related injury.

Quoted message said:

That's fearmongering.

Aah. Sorry, it's plain truth. Why do you
fight it so hard?

Because words like "not unlikely" and "some subtantial" are
intentionally foggy, and chosen to instill fear. It's also true - and
more accurate - to say "Even if you ride for a long time, it's
unlikely that you'll be injured in any serious way." Why choose
phrasing designed to scare people away from cycling?

Quoted message said:

It must really get you down.
It is well accepted by all reasonable persons who
look at this issue that cycling is far more
injurious, on a per-hour or per-mile basis, than
either driving or walking.

Only if you define "injurious" to include every scraped knee, and to
exclude cycling's health benefits.

Yes, if you were to bike everywhere instead of drive everywhere,
you'll almost certainly fall off your bike someday, and get the most
common bike injury - literally, a skinned knee. OTOH, if you drive
everywhere, you're far more likely to die early due to the effects of
being sedentary.

Like most of American society, you're accepting large and common risks
(e.g. death by heart disease) due to a fear of uncommon, minor risks
(falling off a bike).

Quoted message said:

It is obvious to any
sane and reasonable person why this is so.
Shall we dredge up the Ken Kifer survey that
found 'an injury is 33 times more likely to
occur from riding a bike as opposed
to driving a car for the same distance'? Whoops,
looks like I just did...

www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm

To quote:

"Q. 19: When asked about the nature of their most serious cycling-
related injury during the last 12 months,
161 said there was no accident or no injury that was a problem the
next day.
53 said they experienced road rash or other significant abrasions.
4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse
than a headache.
9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, or broken bone.
2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness
or other short-term brain injury.
2 said they had a compound or skull fracture, and/or multiple broken
bones and non-permanent injuries.
None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind.

Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
those kinds of injuries. "

And it's worth noting that the survey was not a random sample. In
other words, it's likely that a person who _had_ been injured in a
bike accident would be far more likely to seek out and respond to a
survey on bike accidents, compared to a person who had never had a
bike injury. (This, BTW, is one of the reasons I bowed out of helping
Ken with that survey.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Avoiding car-bike collisions is no more of a concern
than avoiding car-pedestrian collisions - or, for that matter, house
fires, falling down stairs, drowning while swimming, being struck by
lightning...

Avoiding car-bike collisions no more of a concern
to regular CYCLISTS than house fires, stairs, etc.??
Do you even read what you write?

Let's see: Do regular cyclists ever walk down stairs? Why yes, they
do! Can they seriously injure themselves doing so? Of course! In
fact, serious injuries from stairs are among the more common reasons
for visiting emergency rooms. Should a person therefore worry while
using stairs? No. Only the most timid people do.

Drowning while swimming is far more common than dying from car-bike
collisions. They're also more common per hour exposure. Should a
person therefore worry all the while he swims?

Deaths from being hit by a car while crossing a street are far more
common than deaths from car-bike collisions. They're also more common
per hour exposure. How much should a person worry before stepping off
the curb?

There are all sorts of dangers in life. Cycling is NOT one of the big
ones, especially for cyclists who ride properly.

You choose to scare people with tales of great harm due to cycling. I
choose to show people that cycling is not unusually harmful, and in
fact has benefits that greatly outweigh its minor risks.

Sorry that offends you so.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉

I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.

Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
I flow better within it.

Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
are for -- to make traffic flow better.

I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
it invokes the social component of interacting
with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
social component to be at least as significant
as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
road." Of course it takes more awareness than
adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
their vehicle, itself.

Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
left may go first? That goes against the legal
grain, but sometimes it's sociably beautiful, and
it works, when performed in a way that nobody
involved is too terribly put-out, and everybody
gets to go. Everybody wins. Except the Rules
and the Rule-Followers.

Y'know? Torah/Mitzvah. Letter of the law/spirit
of the law. Give/take (and by taking, give [and
take]).

You can't win, but that's okay because you're
not competing. It's not a contest or a game.
You're just trying to get around, just like
everybody else around you. You're one
of them. You're one of Us. Mobile people.

Continue to keep your eyes on the street and
seeing & anticipating what's happening up ahead.

Keep being safe and watch out for U-turners who
look like just left-turners.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

(Tom Keats) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (Personally, I dislike it when a motorist tries to be overly kind, for
> example by trying hard to wave me through a 4-way stop when it's
> clearly not my turn. My thoughts are "Forget the politeness contest;
> just go, and stop confusing everybody."😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I used to think that way, too. Now if they give it
to me, I'll just receive it when it's safe to do so.

Quoted message said:

Still, as I say, I dislike it. Excessive, rule-breaking politeness by
one motorist can cause problems with other nearby motorists. When
everyone just does what they're supposed to, traffic flows better, and
I flow better within it.

Sure, that's ultimately what the rules of the road
are for -- to make traffic flow better.

I'm glad you brought this up, though, because
it invokes the social component of interacting
with fellow urban traffic. And I've found that
social component to be at least as significant
as awareness, or adherence to the "rules of the
road." Of course it takes more awareness than
adherence to the rules of the road to recognize
an operator of a vehicle as a /fellow/, than as
their vehicle, itself.

Agreed.

I recall a pair of images from a "Sprocketman" cartoon book for kids.
The picture on the left was a view of a crowded city street, showing
cyclists, pedestrians, car drivers, a bus with driver and passengers,
etc.

The matching picture pointed out that they were _all_ just people
getting around, or words to that effect. That picture showed all
those people in the same positions, but on foot instead of in their
vehicles. The bus picture, with the driver standing in front of rows
of standing passengers, seemed particularly funny.

But it does make a couple good points. For example, no matter how big
and classy your car is, you're still just another person who's allowed
to use the roadway. You don't get extra privileges because you're
driving an Escalade.

Quoted message said:

Two people at a lonely intersection, co-operating
instead of contending -- what's wrong with that?
Even if it's mutually decided that the guy on the
left may go first?

Perhaps not much. But the four-way stops I go through on the way to
work are not lonely, they're usually busy. And if the guy to my right
starts waving me through, the guy to my left might run out of patience
and zoom across at the same moment I accept the invitation.

Let me give another, more extreme examplel of excessive politeness.
The nice young teenage guy who lived next door was once approaching
from the south on a busy two lane road as my wife and I rode south.
We were getting ready to make a left turn onto a side street, and I
noticed a gaggle of cars approaching from our rear. I was near the
center line, figuring to turn as soon as the teen passed us.

But he didn't. He began slowing and slowing, then came to a full stop
in his lane, enthusiastically waving for us to turn in front of him.
Cars behind him were blowing their horns, and cars behind us were
squeezing by to our right. (My mistake - I didn't take the lane,
because I figured we'd be gone before they arrived.)

There are all sorts of non-standard moves that work out fine in
deserted road circumstances. But I'm disussing interacting traffic in
volume, not just one driver on a deserted country road. And I think
there's no question that things almost always work out best if people
follow the rules, instead of trying to be overly creative. The rules
work.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
through the eyes of a bike messenger.

You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.

I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
rules of the road are not important ("worthless [censored]," I think you
said)...

You are definitely not going to win any awards
for reading comprehension. For a third
time:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1.

Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
anyway.

Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/

'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
really interesting that you should say that, because
that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
about how many miles a Boston messenger would
ride in a year, seems about the same or
better than the rate found for experienced LAB
members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
incredibly safe.

For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
..5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
study. To you, this rate magically seems 'quite high'
when applied to messengers and amazingly low when
applied to LAB members. To me, it's an
unworkable rate. But you've got to remember that
among those counted were a large number of
abject rookies, many of whom would have very little
experience riding in traffic, much less as messengers,
and dabblers who would not last through the month.
This tells us that the veteran messengers of Boston,
even though they experience thousands of interactions
each day, must havean injury-per-mile rate that is far
lower than that recordedby Moritz for LAB members.
Indeed, among the hundreds of messengers I've
known quite well, the injury rates of the veterans
tend to be at least 2-3 times better than the rate
in the Moritz survey, and better still than the rates
suffered by their hapless rookie compatriots, who I have
compared to the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.

If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

About 6 hours per day on the bike in a
typical 9-10 hour day. 250 days per year. About
15000 miles and 1500 hours per year in
moderate-heavy traffic. And you expect veteran
messengers to defer to you and your ilk as
the acknowledged experts on traffic cycling?
Sorry, Charlie.

:-) As I pointed out, a messenger's priority set and perspective is
far different from a normal cyclist.

Yes, if I wanted advice on how to run red lights and survive, I'd
consult with a bike messenger. In fact, I promise to write to you
first!

But if I want to move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws, I think I'll pay more attention to
the 50 to 100 experts who have made the most significant contributions
to the understanding and teaching of Vehicular Cycling. And as far as
I know, there's not much overlap between those groups.

If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.

If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
day long every day. That would also be a messenger.

As I said, a messenger in just a few years -- in addition to running
tens of thousands of lights -- will accomplish more
law-abiding and 'predictable' cycling than many of your '50-100
experts' will manage in their entire lives. It is right to
wonder then who the real experts might be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Mr. Fantasy, the 'adrenalin junkies' of which you
speak have accident rates that are far lower than any
accident rate you have ever cited on this newsgroup
as evidence that cycling is massively safe.

Really? Odd, the results of the survey at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
ergonomics/bike/
seem to dispute your claims.

No, they don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, it was 11 years avg. between 'serious'
crashes, at their paltry ~2500 miles per year.

<sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...

It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
of LAB members. Although many of them were
commuters, most of the mileage reported in the survey
was in fact recreational.

Quoted message said:

he defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
"serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.

It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
where respondents were left to draw their own line.
Where would you draw it?

Quoted message said:

"Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
those kinds of injuries. " [Kifer]

Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
year; and about 10% had experienced some more
substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
this is among populations who do most of their
riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
would be on lonely roads.

Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
cycling is 'extremely safe?'

Let's get real. These surveys record similar
accident rates to the one that gives the Boston
messenger population its off-the-charts occupational
hazard.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I think a major component of your problem is that you filter things
> through the eyes of a bike messenger.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can continue to believe that, if it makes you feel better.

Quoted message said:

I'm just looking for some plausible explanation for your attitude that
rules of the road are not important ("worthless [censored]," I think you
said)...

You are definitely not going to win any awards
for reading comprehension.

Why? When said "everything else in between is just politics, pomp and
circumstance, hurt feelings, and other worthless [censored]" what were you
referring to, if not rules of the road, lights at night, proper lane
postion, evasive maneuvers and the other things I was talking about in
_addition_ to "awareness"?

Quoted message said:

For a third
time:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1.

Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?

You mean, have I stopped beating my wife? ;-) Nice try.

As Wayne Pein said, "you assume that your 4 categories above are
absolutes, while it is obvious that both awareness and rule following
are actually on continuums. Does ANYBODY fit in any of these
categories? For example, how does one ride without awareness and not
according to the rules of the road? Is he deaf and blind and moving
randomly?"

Wayne's was a good question. It's impossible to ride a bike without
_some_ level of awareness. So how much "awareness" does one need to
qualify by your standard? How would "awareness" even be measured?

But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware. Consider, some of
the most common causes of car-bike crashes are "rideouts" directly
into the path of a car, and riding the wrong direction on the road.
The most common justification I've heard for the latter is "I can see
the cars coming." IOW, "I'm more aware." They still crash.

Again: The rules of the road work remarkably well. It makes sense to
obey them before - and while - attempting to increase "awareness."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And second, messengers spend a substantial portion of
their time riding in a completely lawful, conservative fashion
anyway.

Quoted message said:

Yet their injury rates are quite high. See
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/

'Their injury rates are quite high,' Frank says. That's
really interesting that you should say that, because
that rate (injury/mile) for the messengers of Boston,
according to this survey and reasonable assumptions
about how many miles a Boston messenger would
ride in a year, seems about the same or
better than the rate found for experienced LAB
members in the Moritz study. That's the rate
you consistently cite as evidence that cycling is
incredibly safe.

For a full-time messenger, getting into an injury-causing
wreck every 30,000 miles or so (the rate in the Moritz study
which you consistently cite) means getting hurt about
.5 times per year, which is near the rate in the Harvard
study.

Keep in mind, the definition of "serious crash" in the Moritz paper
did not match the definition of "accident" in Dennerlein's paper. By
Moritz's standard, bending a $50 derailleur or visiting an ER to scrub
out road rash was "serious." By Dennerlein's standard, the injury
needed to be serious enough to miss a day of work. IOW, Dennerlein
seems to be talking about more serious injuries. Don't treat the
standards as equivalent.

Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
paper.

Quoted message said:

If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
to occur under a green light than a red one. That's
a key bit of knowledge I picked up over the years;
you will now choose to ignore it, I imagine.

I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?

I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
that for crossing under the red light?

You seem to be saying it makes no difference; that you're no more
likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
ludicrous.

Quoted message said:

If you want to know how to run lights, ask the person
who does it all day long every day. That would be a messenger.

If you want to 'move through traffic at a reasonable pace, with low
risk of injury, while obeying laws' ask the person who does that all
day long every day. That would also be a messenger.

Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
_also_ obey laws all day every day!

I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
However, I'll note that http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.

In summary, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.

Hmm. I think I just summarized the entire discussion!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<sigh> Unfortunately, in Moritz's survey of bike commuters, ...

It wasn't a survey of bike commuters, it was a study
of LAB members.

You're right. My mistake.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he defined $50 damage to equipment as "serious." So if you're walking
your bike, drop it and bend an STI shifter, that gets reported as a
"serious crash." IMO, it was a flaw in the survey methodology.

It seems you have to draw the line somewhere.
This is a vast improvement over the Kaplan survey
where respondents were left to draw their own line.
Where would you draw it?

Regarding personal injury, I'd say common levels of road rash should
not qualify - and judging by Moritz's data, that must have been most
of the injuries he uncovered. (That's also corroborated by other
papers I've seen on cyclist injuries treated in ERs.)

Likewise, I don't think $50 equipment damage should be called
"serious." That could be caused by slicing an expensive tire on a big
piece of glass, tearing a cycling jacket by snagging a tree limb, or
bending almost any shifter or derailleur on the market.

I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
least one day of work. And I think it should take $150 equipment
damage exclusive of clothing to call things "serious."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Note that this most-serious injury includes injuries less severe than
those in question 18. Also note that I said the injury must be a
problem the next day. Note that 2/3rds of the cyclists did not have
any injury at all. Only 13 claimed injuries as severe as a puncture
wound, broken bone, concussion, or multiple injuries. There would be
40,000 miles, 64,000 kilometers, 2,800 hours, and 17.5 years between
those kinds of injuries. " [Kifer]

Kifer's survey of touring cyclists jibes very well with the
Moritz survey of LAB members (who averaged over 14
years cycling experience). In both surveys we find
that about 1/3 of respondents had experienced at
least some sort of minor cycling injury in the previous
year;

No! In Moritz's survey, roughly 1/3 talked about "some sort of
accident" not "some sort of minor cycling injury." That "accident"
could be a fall off the bike with zero damage, and most of them
doubtlessly were.

Quoted message said:

and about 10% had experienced some more
substantial injury in the previous year, while averaging
just a few thousand miles per year. Remember,
this is among populations who do most of their
riding for recreation, and much of the reported mileage
would be on lonely roads.

Tell me again: how do these surveys help prove that
cycling is 'extremely safe?'

On average, one crash involving a mere $50 damage, or one cleaning up
of road rash at an ER in 11 years, or in about 32,000 miles.

Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?

- Frank Krygowski

CONTINUED...

Quoted message said:

Also, Dennerlein did not give any injury/mile information that I can
see. The per-mile data was one of the valuable points of Moritz's
paper.

Full-time messengers ride about 5 times as many
miles annually as the respondents in the Moritz
survey.

It is impressive that the rates for these two
populations are in the same ballpark, considering
the substantial portion of godawful rookies among
the messengers, and their requirement to
work in all types of weather, and on road surfaces
that recreational riders wouldn't (and shouldn't)
dream of riding.

If we forced all the LAB members to spread their
riding evenly throughout the year like the messengers,
instead of concentrating it in dry happy weather,
we can only surmise that their accident rate would
spike dramatically. Riding on ice is probably the most
challenging and dangerous thing an everyday
cyclist can do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
to occur under a green light than a red one.

Quoted message said:

I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?

Well, I have known so many messengers that
I know with certainty that my own experience -- of
burning several hundred thousand red lights
without a single incident but getting hit while
riding lawfully -- is the typical one.

Running a red light puts your mind in a
certain place. There is no pretense that
this or that vehicle will slow or stop or
yield in any way. You KNOW you have to
remain absolutely vigilant. Under a green,
however, it is far easier to make happy
assumptions, drift off.

The trick is to bring the same type of awareness
you would use while running a red light to
running a green light intersection, where any
number of motorist mistakes can do you in if
you're not ready for them.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure you don't, of course. Such data would be very difficult to
gather. But it does bring us to the crux of the question, I think.
Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
that for crossing under the red light?

You seem to be saying it makes no difference;

I'm saying it depends.

Quoted message said:

that you're no more
likely to get hit while violating a red light than while accepting a
green light, particularly if you're "aware." To me, that seems pretty
ludicrous.

What I said was exactly what I said:
Veteran messengers are far more likely to get hit
under green lights than red ones. It's not
'ludicrous,' it's the truth.

Quoted message said:

Well, a given messenger can hardly run lights all day, every day and
_also_ obey laws all day every day!

Messengers probably spend the majority of their
time riding in a manner that is technically legal.
They do both all day every day. Your bike is on
a hook in the garage.

Quoted message said:

I will admit, messengers will learn an awful lot in a short time.
However, I'll note thathttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ergonomics/bike/
mentions being "doored" as a common cause of injury. To me, that
sounds like evidence of some holes in their knowledge! Vehicular
Cycling is pretty clear about avoiding door zones.

One thing rookie messengers need to learn is that there
are door zones on both sides of vehicles in stop and go
traffic.

Quoted message said:

In summary, a bike messenger might have some valid points to
contribute, but he'd probably have some weird ideas as well. I'd go
with the opinions of a more disciplined team of experts.

I'd go with whoever has vastly more experience.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Robert

Quoted message said:

I think Dennerlein's injury standard would be better: missing at
least one day of work.

A lost-work injury for a messenger is not the
same as a lost-work injury for a non-messenger.
Anything that keeps a courier off the bike, keeps
them from walking the requisite several miles
per day, OR keeps them from hauling the
requisite weight on their shoulder or back
would result in missed work. What kind
of cycling injury would keep a desk pilot
from going to work and sitting there?

Let's say I own a courier company and two
of my employess -- one a messenger, the other
a dispatcher -- are involved in cycling accidents
over the weekend. Both end up with busted
clavicles. The messenger, as bad as he may
want and need to come to work, is going to be
out for several weeks. If the dispatcher doesn't
come to work on Monday, he's fired.

I think what you mean by your injury standard
is missing at least one day of riding, not work.
Sounds like a decent standard to me.

Quoted message said:

Tell me again: How do you call that "dangerous"?

I didn't.You, on the other hand, called it
'quite high' -- after calling the same basic rate 'extremely
safe.' Which is it?

To anyone who may be playing along at home, note
that the accident rates that Frank and I have been
knocking around are among the lowest accident rates that
have ever been recorded -- even though one of them
seemed to be, at first glance, 'quite high.' They are rates
for groups of riders that contain many highly
experienced veterans. Surveys of less
experienced riders have shown much higher accident
and injury rates than these. The overall accident rate for the
entire cycling population is much higher than the
rates in the Moritz survey, Kifer survey, or the
Dennerstein messenger survey.

Is it 'dangerous?' Who knows. Call it 'dangerous' if
doing so helps you stay awake in traffic.

Beware of hobbyist 'experts' whose ideas don't jibe
with those who do it for a living.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
> > awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
> > (2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
> > road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
> > of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
> > rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
> > safer than 2 which is safer than 1.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now do you think 3 safer than 2 or is 2 safer than 3?

Quoted message said:

I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware."

You think 2 is safer than 3. Which is horribly incorrect.

Got data? Because it seems the rest of the world - except, perhaps,
for a few gonzo messengers - disagrees.

Quoted message said:

(1) Without awareness and not according to the rules of the
road: rider blows a red light or stop sign without even
realizing it; ... et cetera...

And thankfully, nobody is advocating that riding style.

Quoted message said:

(2) Without awareness and according to the rules of
the road: rider passing legally through green light fails
to account for possibility of left-turner not seeing him;

[etc.]

And again, nobody is advocating that riding style.

Which is, of course, one of the roots of our disagreement. You
falsely claim Vehicular Cycling (or Effective Cycling) teaches that
style. But it most certainly does not, and I've given many examples
as proof.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I do think riding according to the rules of the road is safer than
violating them, even if the violater is more aware.

Over several decades, bike messengers have proven this
assertion of yours wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well, then, there must be reams of data that indicate this without a
shadow of a doubt, right?

Where is that data?

Unfortunately, until now you're apparently the only person who has
found that data. The rest of the bicycling community seems to
disagree.

Oh, except for folks like Wrong Way Bill, who says "Yeah, I ride
facing traffic so I can see 'em coming." So I guess that's two of
you.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

CONTINUED...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[R12345:]
If a veteran messenger does get hit, it is far more likely
to occur under a green light than a red one.

I'll simply ask for documentation. Got data?

Well, I have known so many messengers that
I know with certainty that my own experience -- of
burning several hundred thousand red lights
without a single incident but getting hit while
riding lawfully -- is the typical one.

Hmm. "Your own experience." Sounds like you've got no data.

Quoted message said:

Running a red light puts your mind in a
certain place.

:-) I'll leave that "place" to the imagination of the readers!

Quoted message said:

There is no pretense that
this or that vehicle will slow or stop or
yield in any way. You KNOW you have to
remain absolutely vigilant. Under a green,
however, it is far easier to make happy
assumptions, drift off.

One of the major weaknesses of your argument is this: While none of
us would dare doubt your ninja-like awareness and reflexes, your
amazing ability to become one with the stream of traffic, and your
ability to rise above any need for obeying traffic laws... ;-)

.... The techniques you advocate are likely to take the next 18 year
old who reads them, and wrap him around a Chevrolet.

Of _course_ he's going to "know" he's good enough to pull off any move
he wants to. That's what being 18 is all about. And he may even have
excellent reflexes, excellent speed and excellent vision.

But the odds are all he's really got is an excellent testosterone
level, and the stupid feeling of invulerability that comes with it.

The type of behavior that you advocate is decried not only recognized
bicycling experts; it's also decried by motorcycling experts and
driving experts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is crossing an intersection with the green light better or worse than
that for crossing under the red light?

Quoted message said:

You seem to be saying it makes no difference;

I'm saying it depends.

Wonderful. Leave it to the instantaneous judgement of an 18 year old
kid in a hurry? Yeah, that should work.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

... The techniques you advocate are likely to take the next 18 year
old who reads them, and wrap him around a Chevrolet.

....and...

Quoted message said:

The type of behavior that you advocate...

Please! Sir!

Careful readers will note that I am not 'advocating' for
(or against) any specific type of behavior, and I am
definitely not suggesting that cyclists should go out and
break laws. I am simply pointing out that upon which
our safety ultimately _depends_, and that upon which
it does not ultimately depend.

thanks for keeping it straight,

Robert