Fu*king Cyclists

[iceman]

Even during the chaos of a Super Bowl Celebration, Seattle refuses to jaywalk.

.

That is ridiculous. So much peer pressure that no one dares, wtf?

That ain't America.

[iceman]

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.

Yeah but then "I dare say" (wtf, jono?) the motherfucker will bitch when he gets his ass run over for blocking traffic.

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.

[::: :::]

This is not correct, at least not for fatalities.

"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

interesting

Bikes have twice proportion of intersection fatalities vs motor vehicles.

on the bike side: probably due to lack of protection
on the car side: probably due to vehicle speed in an intersection

[Sirshredalot]

Yeah but then "I dare say" (wtf, jono?) the motherfucker will bitch when he gets his ass run over for blocking traffic.

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.

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.

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.

[iceman]

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.

[summit]

interesting

on the bike side: probably due to lack of protection
on the car side: probably due to vehicle speed in an intersection

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 Admin
http://www.leempo.com/content/BikePed/ctanbike.pdf

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.

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).

[Sirshredalot]

edit: wait, tens of thousands?

Ballpark, I think we have about 30k auto fatalities per year in this country.

[::: :::]

Let me just take your infographic at face value. ETA The data is from a 1994 Australian study.

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.

Not my data - I've done zero here except report it.
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

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?

No idea how many would be saved. But, reduction of fatalities is a valuable effort. Do you not agree?
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.

Justify why we should lower speed limits versus passing/enforcing helmet laws and cracking down on drunk biking (and driving)?

I'm not sure why you'd posit that only one of those options is doable.

[iceman]

Ballpark, I think we have about 30k auto fatalities per year in this country.

Gotcha, I thought you were talking about cyclists and pedestrians, not all accidents.

[The Suit]

Gotcha, I thought you were talking about cyclists and pedestrians, not all accidents.

You misunderstood because you are low on the pyramid of humanity. It's okay. I expect very little of you.

[summit]

No idea how many would be saved.
But, reduction of fatalities is a valuable effort. Do you not agree?

Cost benefit... let's play:

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.

I'm not sure why you'd posit that only one of those options is doable.

Because changing speed limits without/instead of addressing the bigger issues is crazy!
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.

[hutash]

The pricks who don't like it when cars pass too close or too quickly are the same pricks who go blasting down trails screaming at pedestrians to get out of the way. If bicycles want to share the road, they belong in one place... Under a truck.

Nice generalization and conclusion. Has anybody ever told you you are a prick?

[ex-powderbroker]

[jono]

Yeah but then "I dare say" (wtf, jono?) the motherfucker will bitch when he gets his ass run over for blocking traffic.

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.

[::: :::]

Cost benefit... let's play:

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!
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.

Cost/benefit is not a good way to determine the value of a person.
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.

[Viva]

Your straw man has no legs.

It's a straw worm, duh.

[joetron]

I'm waiting for STFU to appear in an article like this
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/liv...e98068002.html

Palms out bird and everything.

[Sirshredalot]

Cost/benefit is not a good way to determine the value of a person.
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.

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.

$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.

[lanternerouge]

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

[2FUNKY]

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.

[lanternerouge]

Apparently not

Yeah but the majority of shitty people are roadie fags.

[2FUNKY]

Apparently not

No, really, they are.

[jono]

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.

$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.

WTF did I just read? Well played, sir. Well played.

[jono]

I'm waiting for STFU to appear in an article like this
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/liv...e98068002.html

Palms out bird and everything.

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?

[joetron]

Yep.
Now I think the Drunk Cyclist commentariat handles those duties