This is not the proper comparison. Different kinds of vehicles are going to cause a different distribution of problems, so the proper thing to do is total up all accidents of a given severity caused by a given class of vehicle when comparing it with other classes.
So: you’d want to compare ALL hospital visits (or morgue visits, for that matter) resulting from cars running into someone, with ALL hospital visits or morgue visits resulting from bicycles running into someone.
I disagree.
More regulation like this goes nowhere. It is purely punitive, is a gross overreaction to the issue, and will mostly just make a bunch of normal cyclists complete outlaws.
Yes, cyclists ride the wrong way. I get pissed at that since many of them do it in the marked bike lane. But beyond getting annoyed I do not call 911, because frankly I am going to save such efforts for the car that passed with 6 inches of me, and other more deadly concerns. Cyclists barely rate, even at high speed.
Crackdowns on cyclist traffic violations sound like a good idea, and I would support them if history had not shown that such crackdowns become police vengeance-fests bent on punishing cyclists for being cyclist rather than cyclists violating rules: I have been yelled by a cop at for leaving the bike lane (not illegal, BTW) when it was blocked - the cop didn’t even understand my hand signal. There was a famous viral video of a guy in NYC who got a ticket for not riding in the bike lane - something that happened during one of NYC’s ‘crack down on rogue riders’-fests. Other cops have demonstrated that they don’t even understand simple ideas that cyclists can be in the roads. Even more frequently, the cops just set up in areas where fines and violations don’t help
Historically, I’ve only known of one such crack down that wasn’t massively unfair and vindictive and that was spread out to target aggressive city driving as pedestrian antics - the cyclists targeted were ones riding on sidewalks or plowing through pedestrians who had the right of way on high-volume intersections.
Forcing licensing isn’t going to do shit. its is just going to actively discourage riding. Outlaw cyclists will simply have one more law they ignore, and those of us who ride legally will be punished because some non-riders blew things out of proportion.
So you’re name’s Jaymie, you say. And you’re a wee teen girl from Glasgow who’s had an accident and you’re concerned about devotees. Jaymie, what caused your accident, how do you get around, do you have help, have you had any boyfriends, and who or what inspired your username? Details, details!
This isn’t the correct thread! Anyway I’m not answering these, although jaymac1 is because my name is Jaymie MacInnerie and I’m No.1
You are obviously reading what you want to read. I pointed out an interesection where cars frequently set off the cameras, you came back with ‘how many cyclists run that intersection’. My answer was none since it was large and not easily accessible. Then somehow you extrapolate this into some kind of hate-on.
Fuck it. I am tired of apologizing for all misbehaving cyclists. I got buzzed this morning by a driver trying to pass me dangerously - something that happens all too often. By extension should I call all drivers shitty drivers because it seems that on this stretch of road about 75% of the cars try some dangerous passing maneuver so they can break the speed limit to get to the red light at the top of the hill. I don’t consider them to represent all drivers, but somehow its OK to be a bigot against cyclists.
Of course, cyclists are not unique in this kind of ire. I bet if you told someone you were a truck driver they’d regale with horror stories of some truck that cut them off, etc.
The police reports, which you suddenly decided were invalid.
Uh, yeah. Did you notice where even your source notes that the rates are going down? Hint: it ain’t because people are not cycling. Oh wait, I guess you decided it was ‘retarded’ so that means it must be. :rolleyes:
BTW way, since your such a stickler, your own figures are for the entire state of NY. The report does not seem to break out the stats just for NYC and even then just for various zip codes, the worst of which seem to have about 200 total incidents over a period of 4 years.
Meahwhile, cars in NYC kill about 12 pedestrians and cyclists per month. Yay! Apples & Oranges comparisons!
We just don’t have a problem with bicyclists where I live, but I’m sure there is no comparison to my city of 100,000 population to the much bigger cities of millions. Wichita Falls, TX, is a very bike friendly town if you can take the heat. Our city also built this wide sidewalk (yes, of course it’s for cyclists too, roller-bladers, pedestrians, joggers) that will soon circle the entire city and make it even easier for bicyclists to navigate through most of town without spending as much time on roads. It also passed a law where motorists need to pass bicyclists by a certain number of feet. We have over 12,000 bicyclists ride in our Hotter than Hell Hundred (HHH) once a year, many are training throughout the year for that and riding in packs on many major roads for the ride and race. They are no problem at all. I can’t think of a single incident I’ve ever had with a bicyclist in my town, and I’ve lived here all of my life.
Nope. This thread is about whether or not cyclists are more reckless in driving their conveyances than motorists are, not what kind of vehicle causes the most severe injuries during a collision. We all know that cars are heavier and can go faster than bikes, but that has no bearing at all on what percentage of bicyclists operate their vehicles in a manner that threatens me, a sidewalk-traversing, crosswalk-rule obeying pedestrian.
My numbers are intended to give readers a sense of how much more likely a bicyclist is to collide with a pedestrian than a motorist is. To this end, I use ER visits as a proxy for total number of pedestrian/vehicle collisions, under the rather reasonable assumption that nearly all of such incidents conclude with the pedestrian visiting the ER regardless of the apparent severity of the injuries they sustained. Similarly, my data for the incidence of bike/pedestrian collisions is drawn from records that include all hospital visits following such incidents. Note that this last number likely significantly underestimates the true incidence of pedestrian/bike collisions, since most people who get winged by bikes don’t seek medical attention afterwards.
The bottom line is that despite all their distractions, it appears that the average New York City motorist is significantly less likely to hit a pedestrian than the average bicyclist is. You will find very few urban pedestrians who are surprised by this fact.
In conclusion, adults who bicycle illegally on sidewalks should all be put into internment camps.
I couldn’t possibly give less of a shit what you think or say about drivers. And if showing that bicyclists are more likely to run into pedestrians than motorists are is bigotry, then I guess you can call me the Grand fucking Dragon.
For the purposes of comparing total hospital visits, yes, they are completely invalid.
Have you perhaps been riding less often this year? Because that might explain it.
No they’re not, you horrible pile. 1,000 incidents is the state annual figure. The figure I used is 500 annual incidents, which is the percentage of those incidents that took place in New York City. I’ve linked to the damn paper twice and given you the exact page numbers where you can find this information. Do I have to go over to your home and fucking whisper it into your ear?
What does it take to make you learn.
Or maybe as ridership increases and riders feel a little less marginalized they start to behave better.
Oh look! Using the data you’ve been harping on we see ridership from 2007-2010 skyrocketing while actual ped/bike crashes drop
I believe you called that idea ‘retarded’. Let’s make certain.
Yup, you kinda did.
[/QUOTE]
Well see I tend to not have a shitfit about a transportation category that almost doubles in size over a period and yet drops its accident rate by 10%. One thing you have consistently glossed over is the number of pedestrians that cars in NYC outright KILL.
Furthermore, you’ve acted as if this report is sacred. It is not. One of the reasons I have been having issues is that it is very skimpy with the data. For a report that tries to center around NYC they never actually present data properly. I did a count of all the ‘worst zip code’ and came up with a figure of 700+ incidents over 4 years. Even doubling that figure to cover all the other zip codes (which is generous) comes up with a figure of 350 ped./bike incidents per year. This does not gibe with your extrapolations, but why should either of us have to figure this stuff out? Why do they not present the data properly?
I am not alone in this criticism, apparently: A Noncollegial Debate About Bicycles - The New York Times
This study was also initiated by one Nancy Gruskin, who I do not really consider unbiased on the matter of bicycles. She in turn used it to bash a then upcoming bike share program. Which has not by any means been problematic like folks claimed.
I can’t imagine that will change the incidence numbers much, since it’s a small number compared to total ER admissions.
No matter how they present the data, I don’t imagine you’ll have the capability to understand it. That is because you are very, very stupid.
The professor in that article said he doesn’t like this study because how many of the accidents were the pedestrians’ fault? Then he said he doesn’t like the author of the study because the author hasn’t published before. Then he admitted in the comments section that actually that isn’t a valid criticism of the study at all and that he is sorry for saying that, but that he still doesn’t like the study because… well, he doesn’t say. He reminds me of you!
OH noes it is teh anti-bikkings conspirasseee! tihs “Nasny Gringus” is for take away are bikked and maked them into cars? Shus! it is a secrit.
Shame this got off-track so much. I hope some people who ride bikes read this.
In our city, it is legal to ride on the sidewalk. Most cyclists who do are conscientious towards walkers.
However, while you may ride on the sidewalk, you may NOT ride in crosswalks. Drivers do not have time to see you zipping through the intersection and you will likely get hit.
If you do not want to dismount when crossing the street, please use the bike lane or the road itself.
Thanks!
I see you are avoiding the issue I brought up that the massive increase in cycling coming with a decrease in ped/bike incidents. Kinda interferes with your mad-on, doesn’t it?
I like how you call me stupid when you are the one suggesting that such a thing was ‘retarded’, yet there was the data:
And the data itself is a bit suspect, from its origins to it presentation. You skimped over this, for example:
Does not inspire confidence.
So many admirable qualities. If only humility were one of them!
Sure, feel all smug. Buy yourself something cute in Spandex, like a cute little company sponsor racing onesie. Maybe a fancy new farlke for your bike. Whatever.
But all of your doing-good smug sense of superiority does not entitle you to ignore one single traffic law.
Uh, not really, no.
That data is from the same researchers who did the study you think is suspect, so why are you suddenly so credulous? My theory: in addition to being an extremely dumb person, you are also a person who is sexually attracted to bicycles.
You are missing the point. I am noting flaws with your ‘analysis’ wherin you declare cyclists to be such a horrific danger to pedestrians. Those flaws are at least twofold:
The data you use shows that incidents are dropping despite a massive increase in ridership
The data, or at least the presentation is suspect.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the data shows something you do not want to acknowledge or it is faulty. I am simply pointing out these faults. You are the one making some very dubious and tenuous claims so it is up to you to prove otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
And your insults are as effective as your data analysis it seems.
Entitle me? No. But I’ll confidently rank my road behavior well above that of the average texting and FB status checking, smoking, Big Mac eating, Big Gulp drinking, baby and dog wrangling, radio and climate control fiddling automobile driving numbnutz who is so distracted and resentful of cyclists that he takes note of every single bike infraction at the expense of their own attentiveness to the road.
Wow, I’m none of those.
And your every post in this thread exudes the entitled, smug, general dickish attitude that is most likely the root of the behavior that the OP and others are commenting on.
Look, I’m irritated when I see drivers do the things you list. Just as you are. Start a thread about those drivers. Go for it. This is not that thread.
And, in closing, IT IS MY ATTENTIVENESS TO THE ROAD that enables me to see all the dickish behavior by cyclists. If I were the facebook updating, texting inattentive driver you describe above, I would not even see the spandex jackass who just blew through the light.
Well, I didn’t want to say it, but according to the data in this thread, you are not only a seat-sniffing mental invalid, you also are a seasoned child molester.
How could you do it to all those poor kids, Mr. Miskatonic? When they started crying, why didn’t you stop?
So I take you are admitting defeat.
