I think we need to focus on rollerbladers and roller skiers. Problems is, a thread like that would have no legs. Bravo BMills.
Printable View
I think we need to focus on rollerbladers and roller skiers. Problems is, a thread like that would have no legs. Bravo BMills.
But I only hear you complaining. I dare say the cyclist who knowingly opts to trade his safety for convenience (and your convenience for others' safety) is the right person to assess the situation. Is the path overloaded? Is the road? What are the relative speeds involved? These questions are not for you and by the time a cyclist decides conditions favor the road he's probably paid attention to all of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
The Idaho law does that and basically turns red lights into flashing reds for bikes. Still fully responsible for being safe and yielding in the same situations but you get to watch for cross traffic instead of cops in the bushes--the sort of thing that might just make sense for all vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Agreed. Do you think anyone is actually saying that though?Quote:
The other thing that is clear is that there is a lack of common sense--for example, riding a bike in the middle of the lane when it is unsafe for a car to pass makes sense when the the unsafe section is short and the cyclist is moving at a reasonable speed. Doing the same thing for 3 miles at 2 mph does not. And saying that because you are the one most at risk therefore you get to ride any way you want to, regardless of the law or common courtesy displays a shocking lack of common sense.
ALCOHOL
24% of bicyclists over age 16 had blood alcohol concentrations of BAC > = 0.08 when they were killed
35% of deadly crashes involving motor vehicles, either the driver or the bicyclist had BAC >= 0.08
ROADS AND PATHS
65% of cyclists killed died on major roads
76% of cyclists with access to bike paths use them some to all the time.
72% of cyclists with access to bike lanes use them some to all the time.
OF OTHER INTEREST:
60-84% of biking fatalities, the cyclist was NOT wearing a helmet but only 46% of cyclists never wear helmets...
Florida is 6.2% of the US population but accounts for 19% of US cyclist deaths... deadliest in the US.... cyclists account for 5% of FL traffic fatalities.... number one state in the nation! WTF?
And since we are talking about whether stop signs are yield signs for bikes... (and I've always thought "yes")... worth noting that 35% of cyclists killed were killed in intersections... is that partially because cyclists are misjudging when they can blow through traffic control? I don't know but I have to wonder now...
http://www.nhtsa.gov/nti/811841
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles
http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812018
Of course not! I was looking for debate, as I said in my initial reply on the subject of my local MUP.Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
or: because drivers don't look for bikers, they look for big metal boxes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
not sure you can pin the stat on anyone with just that number alone
intersections are likely the sites of most road incidents, period...doesn't matter the mode of transport.
that is more likely to due to different vectors crossing rather than an assumption of stupid decisions, tho i'm sure those feature in almost all the collisions...very few true accidents occur, right? collisions are the result of poor decision-making usually
my two incidents where i was hit were in intersections...both not my fault, though I learned a bit about defensive riding in each of them
Just my anecdotal experience from bike commuting. Intersections are the time of highest danger because, in order of frequency, (1) cars traveling the same direction don't see you, so they right hook across the bike lane; (2) oncoming left turning cars don't see you, or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; (3) cars entering from the right and turning right don't see bikes or can't judge bike speed, and fail to yield; and (4) a cyclist blows the intersection and causes a (near or actual) collision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Many cyclists blow stop signs/stop lights (which sucks because it will make some driver pissed at me by association). Most of these guys don't do it when there's an oncoming car.
actually, PBOT's studies here in portland say it will save livesQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
reposting the earlier link
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/...nd-pedestrians
slower traffic reduces fatalities
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...phic-small.jpg
that doesn't make it any easier for drivers to get where they are going though, that's for sure
This is not correct, at least not for fatalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
"Fatalities in crashes occurring at intersections account for slightly more than 20 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States every year. "
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/810682
Bikes have twice proportion of intersection fatalities vs motor vehicles.
This makes a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerKnuckleDragger
Let me just take your infographic at face value. ETA The data is from a 1994 Australian study.Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
1. You are applying pedestrian speed v mortality data and extrapolating it to cyclists, which may be warranted but I highly doubt percentages would follow.
2. Nationwide about 720 cyclists are killed per year in the US. Tragic, but a very small number compared to the 32,675 killed in car accidents.
3. Most cyclist deaths are at dusk/night where the primary problem is visibility and impaired rider/drivers.
4. 1/3 of cyclist deaths involved drunk biking/driving where speed limit is probably a minor factor.
5. 70% of cyclist deaths are major roads, highways, or interstates where you won't be dropping the speed limit to 20mph.
So given that information:
How many cyclists will you save per year by lowering the speed limits on urban streets?
Justify why we should lower speed limits versus passing/enforcing helmet laws and cracking down on drunk biking (and driving)?
That is ridiculous. So much peer pressure that no one dares, wtf?Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabit
That ain't America.
Yeah but then "I dare say" (wtf, jono?) the motherfucker will bitch when he gets his ass run over for blocking traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Here's the thing, if cyclists didn't think they are superior forms of protoplasm and entitled to do whatever they want, whenever they want, 90% of this shit would go away.
The other 10% is rednecks, so you gotta deal with that, sorry.
Pearls Before Swine nails this over and over but you dumbfucks can't get it.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/d2c73f...49001dd8b71c47
interestingQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
on the bike side: probably due to lack of protectionQuote:
Originally Posted by Summit
on the car side: probably due to vehicle speed in an intersection
I don't think cyclists and pedestrians using the road makes them entitled: they certainly aren't responsible for tens of thousands of deaths a year like motorists are. I think it's the automobile users threatening them or killing them because they should be the sole users of the road who are entitled.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Some of you guys need to step out from behind the windshield for a while. Try biking to work every day or walking your kid to school every day. It'd be a real eye-opener.
edit: wait, tens of thousands?
edit edit: 726 bicyclists killed in 2014. 4884 pedestrians. Your straw man has no legs.
One of those 726 happened about a mile from my house. Guy was waiting at a light to make a left, got the arrow, proceeded. Bicyclist heading the other way ignored the red and got wiped out. Damn drivers.
If you want to see a really fascinating breakdown of types of bike vs vehicle accidents, their respective injury rates, and time/age breakdowns, this is some amazing work by Carol Tan from the Federal Highway AdminQuote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
http://www.leempo.com/content/BikePed/ctanbike.pdf
Hard to find numbers, but the best number I can find is vehicle vs pedestrian kills 1 in 15 while a vehicle vs bike kills 1 in 71. This makes sense as pedestrians are far more likely to go under the car than over it. Going under the car is far more likely to be fatal. The surprising thing was being a car accident was about 1 in 76 mortality... I guess that makes sense given cars go much faster (deadlier) while cyclists are unprotected (deadlier).Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Ballpark, I think we have about 30k auto fatalities per year in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Not my data - I've done zero here except report it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I believe the NHTSA originally published the graphic, and it is based on 1995 US data. {edit: published the data behind the graphic}
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Tra...trian+Injuries
No idea how many would be saved. But, reduction of fatalities is a valuable effort. Do you not agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
The Portland example is proposing a way to determine which streets should become slower. It does not blindly ignore the need for people to get around town in favor of one user group.
I'm not sure why you'd posit that only one of those options is doable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Gotcha, I thought you were talking about cyclists and pedestrians, not all accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
You misunderstood because you are low on the pyramid of humanity. It's okay. I expect very little of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Cost benefit... let's play:Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
1. Portland has 2-4 bike fatalities per year per the article.
2. From the stats I posted, probably less than 20% of bike fatalities would be sensitive to the proposed changes in speed limits (and that is probably generous).
3. Let's say we can cut fatalities in half for those accidents that would be speed limit sensitive (massively generous assumption because we are going to speed limits on some streets).
It would take several years, probably many years, before changing the speed limit saves the life of a cyclist in Portland, statistically speaking.
Because changing speed limits without/instead of addressing the bigger issues is crazy!Quote:
I'm not sure why you'd posit that only one of those options is doable.
Cracking down on drunk biking and enforcing helmet laws would probably save a Portland cyclist's life in as little as one year and without causing all the problems associated with dropping speed limits.
Nice generalization and conclusion. Has anybody ever told you you are a prick?Quote:
Originally Posted by stfu&gbtw
Hyperbole vs. reality. I'm assuming that Summit wasn't actually making up the fact that some cyclists choose to ride the road instead of an adjacent path on occasion. Which means there is not a high probability of getting run over for blocking traffic in that location or they wouldn't do it. I don't know Summit's paths, but there is one like he describes near me and on occasion people opt for the road. I've done it once or twice when I was planning to go faster than would be reasonable on the path. I think I had one car pass me in the ~1 mile distance. And as expected I was not run over. Also as expected the driver was probably 6-8 seconds delayed. I don't think he even cried. (At least not until he was safe in his garage?) Maybe he even caught back up to the car I had been drafting when I first joined the road so that he wasn't delayed at all. Perhaps that's why he was just feeling extra charitable and decided not to run me over? Lots of unknowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Cost/benefit is not a good way to determine the value of a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
And making up stats along with citing one or two facts doesn't make a reasonable argument.
We've had 30 people die this year on Portland streets, all traffic related fatalities. PBOT has determined that looking at street speeds could help get them closer to Vision Zero (goal of no vulnerable user traffic fatalities). I support it based on what I've read and followed in the local paper and blogs dedicated to looking at safety on our streets.
It's a straw worm, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
I'm waiting for STFU to appear in an article like this
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/liv...e98068002.html
Palms out bird and everything.
The research literature I am familiar with places an intrinsic value on a human life of about $10-$15 million. But on top of that you also need to include PV of their future earnings. Call that another $2-3 million per head, because I'm feeling generous.Quote:
Originally Posted by acinpdx
$15 million per person per year. Portland is on pace for 40 of those this year. That's $600 million per year. PV of $12 billion for the sake of round numbers. But there are probably some extra benefits in knocking down vehicle speed on neighborhood streets: increased quality of life reflected in increased property values, probably some very meaningful health benefits from an increase in people walking to work and school, too. Plus you've got a reduction in road maintenance costs and a reduction in property damage done by negligent drivers.
On the cost side, you've got some amount of increased travel time. There are two problems in valuing this. First, there are behavioral responses: the speeders probably now choose the arterial instead of the neighborhood road. You can probably back into that number. Second, drivers seem to place an irrationally low and highly variable value on the time they spend behind the wheel. Attempts to hang a dollar value on this have been really difficult. Survey data indicate a strong correlation between time spent in an auto commute and unhappiness, but observed behavior suggests near-indifference to it.
Anyhow, in eyeballing this, $12 billion looks like a floor in terms of how much Portland should be willing to spend. If we're going to be intellectually honest and use financial transaction rather than survey data, we need to use a very low number for the value drivers place on their time behind the wheel, and that's going to get swamped by any improvements in the health of the kids who are walking to school. Improvements in health for kids always crushes everything else when you do this kind of calculation: they have long expected life spans and high future earnings potential.
So, good for Portland. Unless they're throwing somewhere well north of $20 billion at this project, I would support it without chasing the numbers any further.
ITT a bunch of people shitting on other people's outdoor activity of choice... ironic.
Guess what there are shitty people in the world, as this thread has demonstrated. Good thing it's not everybody.
Edit: typo
Yeah but the majority of shitty people are roadie fags.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanternerouge
Apparently not
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2FUNKY
No, really, they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanternerouge
WTF did I just read? Well played, sir. Well played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirshredalot
Is it just me or did you sort of wonder if 10 years ago the collective maggotdom would have been the internet vigilantes in that story instead of the old fucks DD warned us about?Quote:
Originally Posted by joetron
Yep.
Now I think the Drunk Cyclist commentariat handles those duties
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetron
LOL, we may have to take away his NYC card and get him a Native bumper sticker!
Bitch in the article may have been batshit, but the bikers weren't behaving either. They had a bike lane, yet were riding 2 a breast. So bitch may have at least had reason to be pissed.
Were they even outside the lane though? Not that it matters much; if she actually put her car within arms reach of a bicycle, let alone on purpose, she's lucky all they did was take a picture and kick her off the internet. She wouldn't pass 2 feet from a dump truck.
Around here, it's backroads with speed limits ranging from 60 to 80kph and gravel shoulders, or a main interprovincial highway where most traffic is averaging 110kph that does have a decent paved shoulder. One has local kids and rush hour 3-wobbly-pop-after-work good ol' boys, the other has heavy transport and distracted tourist.
Fuck it, I stick to the dirt trails and if forced to run the gauntlet, I try and maximize the horses and ATV trails paralleling the backroads/Hwy. Bad enough when I get hit when encased in a steel cage, let alone on a bike. Modern transport coupled with human stupidity/incompetence simply makes the argument for bikes vs vehicles ROW moot.
I lump the asshole cyclists in with all the other asshole vehicle operators in this state who collectively manage to create complete fucking gridlock with a third of the people it takes to do so elsewhere. Like littering, riding your bike like as asshole, driving 55mph in the passing lane, refusing to let cars merge on the highway, tailgating, accelerating to prevent people from using passing lanes, etc... All of them should carry a first offence penalty of an aluminum bat to the face. People complain about how many people there are in CO, and how little infrastructure we have... How about we stop wasting our limited resources on acting like insecure wanna be alpha local pricks?
The world would be a better place if we were all fucking cyclists. I'm going to go fuck one now.