|
|
| Read these three articles about cycling (324950) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (324950) | |
Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017 The first one relates to buses.Don't Trust DOT Stats" Bike Helmets Yes, Lanes No NY Times Op Ed - Wheels of Misfortune Although Streetsblog consistently calls for manslaughter charges to be brought against any driver killing a pedestrian even if it was an accident, they don't believe the same should be true about the reckless cyclist who killed a pedestrian (in this article). Instead of saying anything bad about the cyclist, they criticize the New York Times for printing this op-ed. Apparently they do not believe cyclists should be held to the same standards as motorists. Someone needs to point out their hypocrisy to them. I can't since they banned me for life for expressing my opinions which obviously disagree with theirs. They only want their one-sided opinions expressed and have no interest in fair discussions or democracy. |
|
|
| (324952) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by andy on Mon Aug 14 17:49:06 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. Bravo to The NY Times for printing the Op-Ed "Wheels of Misfortune."The story sadly told of an issue I've observed, at least in NYC, for years. Many cyclists flaunt traffic rules and put themselves and pedestrians at risk. When I call them out for blowing past red lights and pedaling the wrong way in their own bike lanes, they get hostile. I now look both ways when crossing one way streets, to make a cyclist isn't in my path. |
|
|
| (324953) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 19:18:30 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. Although Streetsblog consistently calls for manslaughter charges to be brought against any driver killing a pedestrian even if it was an accident, they don't believe the same should be true about the reckless cyclist who killed a pedestrian (in this article).This collision occurred in Washington DC. Streetsblog has local edition for NYC that comments on local vehicle collisions. It does not have a local edition for Washington DC. Any silence in the NYC edition regarding a collision that occurred in Washington DC is understandable. There is large cycling community in DC. One of the largest cycling organizations is the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA). Here's a link to their statement. The initial newspaper report on March 11th noted: "Police have not said whether the bicyclist went through a red light or if Clark stepped into the street against a pedestrian signal. Police said the cyclist remained at the scene and no charges have been filed pending the conclusion of the investigation." A later report on April 13th noted: A 27-year-old bicyclist has been charged with disobeying a traffic device after police said he fatally struck a woman who was trying to cross a street at Franklin Square in Northwest Washington. Zakkai Stanley Kauffman-Rogoff of Northwest Washington was issued a citation, said Aquita Brown, a spokeswoman for D.C. police. Brown said in a statement that “the investigation is still ongoing, and [police are] working with the United States Attorney’s Office to determine if any additional charges may apply.” Kauffman-Rogoff’s attorney, David Benowitz, said that his client “denies culpability in this unfortunate event, and that he has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the investigation.” So far as I know, this is where the case currently stands. The cyclist awaits his day in court to refute both the traffic violation citation and any charges the US Attorney might choose to bring. |
|
|
| (324954) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 19:49:11 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. Bike helmets are not required for anyone over 13 years old. The reason for this requirement is that a child's brain is still developing biologically until this age. Given the same impact, less severe brain injuries are likely to develop for those older than 13 years old.I have not seen any literature to the effect but I suspect that brain trauma becomes more severe as one gets older. My guess is this is due to the gradual decline in the number brain cells after the age of 25. It might be appropriate for senior citizens to wear helmets while bike riding. There's a limit to a helmet's usefulness. It will basically prevent an injury from falling off a stationary bicycle. That's all the specs cover. Ironically, this is the same type of injury that Ms. Clark suffered in Washington DC. She fell over backwards and fractured her skull. She might be alive today were she wearing a helmet. A friend suffered a stroke that left him with a balance problem. Cycling was out. Walking was difficult because he would lose his balance. His solution was to wear his bike helment, while walking. |
|
|
| (324955) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 20:51:48 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. Mr. Rosen misread NYCDOT's chart. The legend clearly states the 392 number represents the "Average Cyclist KSIHaving misread the meaning, he then proceeded to make an inappropriate extrapolation. DOT's statistics in this case are correct. Mr. Rosen's stats should not be trusted. |
|
|
| (324956) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 21:38:14 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by andy on Mon Aug 14 17:49:06 2017. A friend of mine was recently getting off a bus in Manhattan. Luckily she was slow to get off because a cyclist in the bike lane was speeding along without even slowing down when he saw the bus with the open door. If she was a little quicker, he would have ran into her. |
|
|
| (324957) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 21:44:14 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 19:18:30 2017. You say any silence by the NYC edition of Streetsblog is understandable.BUT THEY WERE NOT SILENT. They criticized the NY Times for publishing the Op Ed. As long as they made a comment, they should also have criticized the cyclist for not obeying the traffic signal. Okay, he remained at the scene and cooperated. How many drivers gave remained at the scene and cooperated? Many and Streetsblog still claims manslaughter charges should have been brought. |
|
|
| (324958) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 21:51:18 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 19:49:11 2017. Unbelievable. You find reasons why cyclists do not need to wear helmets. Yet you imply pedestrians should wear helmets to protect them.My sister was 56 years old (not a senior citizen) when she fell off her bike on a protected bike path when she made a short stop to avoid a collision with a nine-year old cyclist. She was in a coma for seven years until she died. I really wish she was wearing a helmet. She might be alive today. So don't give me reasons why cyclists should not wear helmets. Are you also going to defend cyclists who ride at night wearing dark non reflective clothing because the law doesn't require it? How about those who ride without headlights and reflectors at night and do not have a horn or whistle? If a driver can't see hm because of that, is the driver still guilty and the cyclist still innocent? How far will your defense of cyclists go? |
|
|
| (324959) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 22:07:27 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 21:44:14 2017. they should also have criticized the cyclist for not obeying the traffic signal.As I mentioned, it took the DC police 1 month before they issued a ticket for running a light. The cyclist is contesting the citation. I'm content to wait for a trial verdict before stating that the cyclist did not obey the traffic signal. |
|
|
| (324960) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 20:51:48 2017. Mr Rosen did not misread NYCDOT's chart. Mr. Rosen never stated the total number killed in a four year period, as Mr Bauman wrongly alleges, was 392. Mr. Rosen fully recognizes that DOT is referring to average cyclist KSI per year.Mr. Bauman is trying to discredit Mr. Rosen because he either has a reading comprehension problem or believes the only way to discredit Mr. Rosen is by lying. If you see nothing wrong with comparing three five year periods with a four four year period, I suggest you go back to school, Mr. engineer. You claim the extrapolation is incorrect. Do you believe none is needed and DOT's conclusions are therefore correct? The way I extrapolated for the fifth year, 2015 was to take the four year average of 392 and divide it by four. I arrived at 98. I added the 98 to 392 and arrived at 490 average killed per year for the five year period. Then I compared 365 to 490. 490 is 34 percent higher than 365. How is that methodology incorrect? Further DOT states they did not include 2015 because the statistics were not available. Yet there is a 2015 bicycle crash report on their website. But it shows all bike injuries and fatalities, not KSI, so you can't just plug in the missing number. Now why would they gave the number of all bike injuries for 2015 and not serious injuries. A more probable explanation is that including the fifth year would not have allowed them to come to the conclusion that cycling is safer than ever. Also notice how DOT conveniently omitted the statistic quoted in the NY Times article showing the huge increase in the numbers of cyclists injuring pedestrians between 2012 and 2015. So not only can't NYC DOT be trusted, neither can Mr. Bauman. |
|
|
| (324961) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:25:53 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 22:07:27 2017. So you still believe the cyclist over the DC police just because the cyclist is claiming he is innocent?The cyclist has an incentive to claim innocence. What would the DC police's motive be in wrongly charging him? |
|
|
| (324962) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Mon Aug 14 23:01:41 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017. Mr. Rosen never stated the total number killed in a four year period, as Mr Bauman wrongly alleges, was 392. Mr. Rosen fully recognizes that DOT is referring to average cyclist KSI per year.[...] The way I extrapolated for the fifth year, 2015 was to take the four year average of 392 and divide it by four. I arrived at 98. I added the 98 to 392 and arrived at 490 average killed per year for the five year period. Then I compared 365 to 490. 490 is 34 percent higher than 365. How is that methodology incorrect? Are you serious? If it's 392 KSI per year, then dividing it by four gives you a 3-month average. Adding it to the yearly average just gives you the average per 15 months. What you wrote is nonsensical. |
|
|
| (324963) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 23:21:04 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017. The way I extrapolated for the fifth year, 2015 was to take the four year average of 392 and divide it by four. I arrived at 98. I added the 98 to 392 and arrived at 490 average killed per year for the five year period. Then I compared 365 to 490. 490 is 34 percent higher than 365. How is that methodology incorrect?Let me explain. What do you think the 392 figure and your description of a "four year average" mean? If it's a per year average as you admit, then it's calculated by taking the sum of the yearly KSI incidents and dividing by the number of years. Given that 392 is a per year average, then the total number of KSI incidents over the 4 years is 4 x 392 or 1568. That's the number to which 25% should be added to get the 5 year total, as per your extrapolation. 25% of 1568 is 392 (surprise). The total over 5 years comes to 1960. The yearly average over the 5 year period becomes 1960/5 or 392 (surprise2). |
|
|
| (324964) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 23:24:32 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:25:53 2017. What's your problem with letting the accused and the police present their evidence and letting a judge or jury decide? |
|
|
| (324965) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Aug 15 07:11:35 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017. Wow, you're an idiot. As I've said in the past, your writings here make it virtually impossible to believe that you were ever a director of anything, let alone of transportation planning. And even when intelligent people who know much more than you tell you that you are wrong, you continue to argue with them. No matter what air quality BS you spew, it's pretty clear why you didn't last long in the transportation planning field. You can't even understand averages and extrapolation!!!! |
|
|
| (324966) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 07:49:31 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017. Also notice how DOT conveniently omitted the statistic quoted in the NY Times article showing the huge increase in the numbers of cyclists injuring pedestrians between 2012 and 2015.The name of the report is: "Safer Cycling: Bicycle Ridership and Safety in New York City." It's clear emphasis is on safety to the cyclist. Pedestrian safety was beyond this report's scope. Unless cyclist safety were gained at the expense of pedestrian safety, it's unlikely omitting pedestrian safety figures was deliberate. Here's a link to the source for the numbers in the cited NY Times Op Ed piece. A review of the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 data shows: the number of pedestrians injured by bicycles to be: 244; 316; 305; 361 and 311 respectively. The 2012 figure of 244 appears to be an outlier - being exceedingly low. It's one reason that multiple year averages are used, rather than the yearly raw data. The data also records 1 pedestrian fatality in 2013 and 3 in 2014. It would be useful to see earlier data to conclusively determine whether the 2012's 244 was an outlier. Unfortunately, NYPD's reports could not easily imported into a database for analysis. It took successive actions by the City Council, egged on by bicycle advocates, to force NYPD to make such reports public and then in a format that could be imported into a database. One problem with the data is it includes all pedestrian injuries regardless of severity. The NYPD reporting does not record injury severity. This data has to be retrieved from hospital records. Vision Zero's mandate is to eliminate all fatalities and reduce the number of those severely injured. It's okay if its strategies slightly increase the number of minor collisions or injuries. That's been Sweden's experience, where Vision Zero originated. |
|
|
| (324967) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 08:21:41 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Aug 15 07:11:35 2017. it's pretty clear why you didn't last long in the transportation planning field. You can't even understand averages and extrapolationI suspect Mr. Rosen's statistical competence was a good fit at NYCT. |
|
|
| (324968) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Aug 15 10:22:25 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:25:53 2017. What would the DC police's motive be in wrongly charging him?LOL. The police never wrongly charge anyone, do they? PS. I think large numbers of bicyclists behave outrageously, and about a year ago I was injured by one who was running a red light riding down a one way street in the wrong direction at night (how silly of me not to look both ways when crossing a street with a walk light). |
|
|
| (324969) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Aug 15 10:25:12 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 07:49:31 2017. the number of pedestrians injured by bicycles to be: 244; 316; 305; 361 and 311 respectively.When I was injured by a hit-and-run cyclist, not seriously enough to arrant medical attention, I went home for a few minutes to feel better, then went to the police precinct. They refused to take a report; they said I would have needed to summon the police to the site of the accident. So I think some injuries are probably missing from the statistics. |
|
|
| (324970) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 10:51:52 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 15 10:25:12 2017. They are missing, even if the police respond on the spot.I was hit by a car while on my bike. Police and and ambulance were summoned. An MV form was filled out. I had to go to the police precinct, with $10 in check or money order (no cash), to get a copy of the report. I checked the crash data from NYPD. My crash never appeared in the statistics. Generally, hospital records provide are more complete for serious injuries than police reports. This is also true in Sweden. |
|
|
| (324971) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:31:31 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 23:24:32 2017. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem that you might not make us aware of the results. |
|
|
| (324972) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:33:07 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 15 10:22:25 2017. Of course the police wrongly charge people. It happens frequently. I just doubt that is the case this time since it took them a month to charge him. A wrongful charge after a month of investigation would be outrageous. |
|
|
| (324973) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:43:36 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 23:21:04 2017. What you are saying makes no sense at all because you are completely ignoring 2015 data and are making no estimate of what it should be. You are merely assuming that the four year average equals the five year average when there is absolutely no reason to believe that is the case.The only way your scenario would be true is if the numbers killed or seriously injured in 2015 was no greater than the yearly average of the four preceding years and you have zero basis on which to make that assumption. The way I did the extrapolation was correct absent 2015 data which we do not have. |
|
|
| (324974) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:45:11 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 15 10:25:12 2017. So the number of injuries are underestimated but I doubt that is true with KSI which is what we are talking about here. |
|
|
| (324975) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Aug 15 14:32:26 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 08:21:41 2017. Right, that must be why they fired him: because his statistical competence fit so well. |
|
|
| (324976) | |
Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter. |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Aug 15 15:17:41 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 22:22:58 2017. The way I extrapolated for the fifth year, 2015 was to take the four year average of 392 and divide it by four.A four-year average has already been divided by four. That's what makes it an average. Otherwise it would be a four-year total. |
|
|
| (324977) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Howard Fein on Tue Aug 15 15:32:09 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 21:51:18 2017. She was a wonderful person, may she rest. |
|
|
| (324979) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Aug 15 16:59:29 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:43:36 2017. You made no extrapolation. You made up a number with no basis in reality and claimed it is more correct than the logical assumption which everyone else including the DOT is making.There IS NO reason to assume 2015 is different than the years prior to it. You DO have a strong reason to believe the 4 year average will be very close to the 5 year average, as you already have 80% of the data. The remaining 20% (KSI in 2015) would have to be astronomically different in order for your estimate to be accurate. What reason do you have for assuming that the KSI in 2015 suddenly jumped to 882? |
|
|
| (324984) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by JerBear on Wed Aug 16 07:58:55 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 14 20:51:48 2017. I never took statistics, so bear with me if I get this wrong or extrapolate too much. But the percentage of deaths as a greater part of deaths and serious injuries is a pretty steady number. Ignoring the 2011-to-201-whatever numbers, the number of fatalities is between 4.1% and 5.2% of people killed or seriously injured. The fatalities number in the report for 2011-2015 does not have an asterisk next to it, so it is the true average of number of people killed each year during those time periods. To estimate the highest likely number of KSI between 2011-2015, take the lowest percentage of deaths per KSI in the recent past and apply it to the known deaths between 2011-2015. You get 418 as the average. For 418 to be the average for the 5 years between 2011-2015, knowing already that there were 1568 KSIs between 2011-2014, it would mean that there were 521 KSI in 2015. That would be both a huge number in and of itself, and DOT would not want that number to mix in with the data if they argue that bicycling is becoming safer per ride.Of course if you instead apply the highest percentage of deaths per KSI in the recent past and apply it, the 5-year average becomes 330 KSI, and only 84 KSIs would be the number for 2015. Now if we apply a bell curve to all of the numbers between those extremes, what is the likelihood that the 5-year average was 490? Again, I didn't even know what statistics was in college or that there was a class in it, so I could be wrong. But I think the correct answer is something like "less than a 1% chance." |
|
|
| (324985) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Aug 16 08:13:11 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Aug 15 08:21:41 2017. LOL!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (324986) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Aug 16 08:16:01 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by JerBear on Wed Aug 16 07:58:55 2017. College level statistics is heavily into hypothesis testing which is showing correlations, inferring some causality, and use of multiple regression, in which a lot of linear algebra with matrix multiplication goes on behind the scenes in a compute package, like SPSS or SAS. |
|
|
| (324987) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Aug 16 08:16:04 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30A on Tue Aug 15 16:59:29 2017. Owned. |
|
|
| (324988) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Aug 16 08:17:11 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Aug 15 12:43:36 2017. No, you're completely wrong. As usual. Not a single person here has agreed with you. Not even any of the haters. Does that tell you anything??? |
|
|
| (324989) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Aug 16 08:40:29 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Howard Fein on Tue Aug 15 15:32:09 2017. Clark: I think that since this is aunt Bethany’s 80th Christmas, she should lead us in the saying of grace.Bethany: What dear? Grandma Griswold: GRACE!! Bethany: Grace! She passed away 30 years ago. Louis: They want you to say grace! THE BLESSING!! Bethany: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, (everyone joins in) One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clark: …Amen! |
|
|
| (324990) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Aug 16 09:13:01 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30A on Tue Aug 15 16:59:29 2017. I said it could have jumped to 882, not that it did.But let's not extrapolate, but look at data we do have for cyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries for the past five years (excluding accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles) We find that the total of injuries and fatalities increased for three years in a row from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 there were 4099 reported bicycle and pedestrian injuries and deaths. In 2014, there were 4792. In 2015, there were 5273. In 2016, the number was 4985. Comparing 2012 and 2016, the increase was 11.4%. Comparing 2013 and 2016, the increase was 21.6%. Comparing 2013 and 2015, the increase was 28.6%. So cycling may be safer looking at the years between 1996 and 2014. But why rely on 2 and a half year old data? In recent years with the increase of cycling, more people are getting injured and killed. Using five year averages masks the fact KSI could have increased each year for the past ten years. |
|
|
| (325036) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 24 13:17:19 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. Cycling deaths and injuries are soaring in recent years not only in NYC but nationally as well in spite of dedicated bike lanes. Maybe is time for government to stop encouraging cycling as a means of commuting.https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bike-riding-isnt-childs-play-anymore-and-cycling-crash-deaths-are-soaring/2017/08/23/abbcb22e-8773-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.b2d8a55e7a4f#comments |
|
|
| (325037) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Aug 24 16:02:27 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 24 13:17:19 2017. Trains are safer than cars, which are getting more dangerous, probably from Smartphone use.They should then also stop encouraging autos as a means of commuting. (Not happening). |
|
|
| (325038) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Aug 25 09:18:43 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Aug 24 13:17:19 2017. Is there any evidence at all or any reason whatsoever to believe that mortality is going up for cyclists per capita? |
|
|
| (325042) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 14:03:06 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Joe V on Thu Aug 24 16:02:27 2017. It certainly has been happening in NYC. |
|
|
| (325043) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 14:09:05 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30A on Fri Aug 25 09:18:43 2017. Not sure what you are implying. We certainly can make cycling safer by requiring the use of helmets like we do sea belts for drivers. I believe the article stated that 50 percent of cyclists who were killed were not wearing helmets. Requiring them to be visible at night would also help. Idiots who wear black without reflectors or lights and ride where they are not expected to be like between the double yellow line (which happened to me last week) are asking to be hurt or killed. Then cycling advocates can blame the driver when he said he didn't see the cyclist. |
|
|
| (325047) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Aug 25 15:51:44 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 14:09:05 2017. Studies conducted have not demonstrated that helmet use is universally beneficial, so instituting such a law may well be detrimental.If drivers cannot see legal bicyclists, they should not be driving. If they kill a bicyclist who is bicycling within the confines of the law, they should be tried for manslaughter. |
|
|
| (325049) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 25 17:39:32 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 14:09:05 2017. I have found the more fanciful their spandex clothing, the more reckless the bicyclists are, i.e. running stop signs and red lights, near misses with pedestrians at crosswalks with the green. |
|
|
| (325050) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 18:14:15 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30A on Fri Aug 25 15:51:44 2017. What do you mean by "universally beneficial"? Are you saying it shoukd not be required because it won't prevent every single fatality? That is absolutely ridiculous.I knew someone who was in an automobile accident and not wearing a seatbelt saved his life. It was a rare occurrence. His car went over a cliff and was ejected and ended up on the roadway standing up without a scratch! The cops said he woud have been killed if he wore a seatbelt. So by your logic, because of that rare occurrence we should not require seatbelts. Virtually nothing is "universally beneficial." My sister might still be alive today if she wore her helmet when she was cycling. Even if some lives are saved, it should be required. How could wearing a helmet be detrimental? And you are wrong about drivers being at fault if they can't see legal bicyclists if the law doesn't require light or reflective clothing at night and reflectors on the wheels. One tiny rear reflector and a headlight which I believe is all the law requires is insufficient. Cyclists need to use more common sense and take some responsibility. I was able to see some cyclists only because of the reflectors on their sneakers! |
|
|
| (325051) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30a on Fri Aug 25 19:20:41 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Aug 25 18:14:15 2017. Helmets reduce awareness as they reduce visibility and hearing, and at least some studies have shown helmet use resulting in higher numbers of neck injuries.If you cannot see a bicyclist without reflectors, you shouldn't be driving. Period. But we already knew that you shouldn't be on the road. |
|
|
| (325052) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Fri Aug 25 19:40:30 2017, in response to Read these three articles about cycling, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017. What I read was a tragedy, of course, as are all collisions that result in serious injury or death. But what wasn't clear was causation. The victim's daughter wrote that her mother "followed pedestrian laws with a near-religious fervor, [and] had a green light [when struck]." No mention was made as to whether the victim observed to see if it were safe to enter the street. Contrary to popular belief, green does not mean "go"; green means that it is permissible to go if it is safe to do so, but not if unsafe. Unfortunately, I think most "pedestrian safety" efforts focus on training pedestrians to follow traffic signals rather than to observe actual traffic conditions and actual safety. I don't want to blame the pedestrian here, but it does seem contrary to ordinary experience that a cyclist would suddenly appear and strike a pedestrian without warning. But it is possible that negligence on the bicyclist's part might have caused the collision. There are just not enough facts here to properly make a judgment.The conclusions I reach are: (1) fatal bicycle-pedestrian collisions occur so infrequently (compared to fatal automobile-pedestrian collisions) that it is news when it happens, likely the result of lower inertia (velocity and mass) of bicyclists, and so bicycling should not be discouraged for that reason, (2) that bicyclists have the same duties as operators of other vehicles, though their risk of liability is lower because of their lower inertia, and (3) pedestrians and vehicle operators alike should not rely exclusively on traffic control devices (or roadway markings), but should place great reliance on observation. |
|
|
| (325054) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 25 20:25:58 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30A on Fri Aug 25 15:51:44 2017. "Not universally beneficial" does not mean it is unneeded for all circumstances, or even unneeded for most circumstances. Motorcyclists are required to have them, so bicyclists should too. Head injuries are a reality and can protect it.It has nothing to do with the driver not seeing the bicycle. |
|
|
| (325055) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 25 20:28:12 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30a on Fri Aug 25 19:20:41 2017. No they do not reduce awareness and hearing. Obviously you have never ridden a bicycle. You can also fall and have a head injury without it involving a car. |
|
|
| (325056) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Aug 26 02:54:56 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by R30a on Fri Aug 25 19:20:41 2017. Bicycle helmets (unlike motorcycle helmets) don't cover the eyes and ears, so they wouldn't reduce visibility and hearing. |
|
|
| (325057) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30a on Sat Aug 26 03:34:59 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Joe V on Fri Aug 25 20:28:12 2017. Not all helmets are the same. I have commuted by bicycle at least periodically since I started working 16 years ago. |
|
|
| (325058) | |
Re: Read these three articles about cycling |
|
|
Posted by R30a on Sat Aug 26 03:35:52 2017, in response to Re: Read these three articles about cycling, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Aug 26 02:54:56 2017. Depends on the helmet. I have had some which did in the past. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|