From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Request for statistics regarding bicycle helmet use in Holland
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:21:37 GMT

(John Forester comments about several things)

John tells us that someone left a message but didn't sign it.
I suggest you learn how to use the system John. When the name
of the sender is in the header, it isn't necessary to sign the
bottom as someone to blame for any errors.

John, all of your careful explainations about mileage are purely
academic garbage. Certainly the idea of a bicycle is to get from
point A to point B. But that still doesn't make mileage a good
measure of accident probabilities.

You say that I don't understand what the dangers to bicyclists are
and then give the example of railroad tracks. This is indeed
interesting, but it isn't, again, a measure of bicycle _danger_ but
of hazard.

How many people have died in the entire history of the United
States from falls on railroad tracks that didn't involved subsequently
being run over by a vehicle?

The true measure of danger to a bicyclist isn't from falls that,
statistically, _will_ happen and the results of which, statistically,
will be minor. If this was the case we would have to factor in every
danger in the environment from bathtub falls to ozone production of
bicycle generators.

The danger is from vehicle encounters which can _easily_ be fatal or
have drastic and major health effects.

This is not a flame, John, I sincerely appreciate your efforts on
the part of bicyclists. I am trying to explain the idea of danger
versus hazard.

We all are subjected to hazards in varying degrees. Most road hazards
contain only the slightest mortal danger even though such dangers may
be there in theory. The outstanding exception to this is vehicular
hazards. These are quantifiably dangerous because a large number
of them, statistically, end in fatalities or extremely serious bodily
injuries.

You offer an example where there is only a single turn on a commuting
trip. You say that most bike-car accidents occur where cars are turning
either left or right into the bicyclist. I agree with your example but
have to point out that you are only saying that some roads are safer
than others. This is a truism, not a helpful or enlightening fact.

Accidents must be addressed not only with their frequency, but to
their seriousness also. If we investigate accidents on bicycles we
discover that _most_ accidents involve children losing control and
falling off. Would we therefore conclude that most bicycle accidents
could be prevented with training wheels?

No, we conclude that _if_ we accept that bicycles are intrinsically
as safe as can be accepted, then these accidents will occur naturally.
Do we pass laws stating that children under the age of 18 months must
wear crash helmets because of the dangers of learning to walk?

The conclusions are thus: The clearest and most present danger to
bicyclists are motor vehicles. The longer you are on the road, the
more motor vehicles you encounter. The more motor vehicles you
encounter the larger the chance that some momentary distraction on
the part of even a good driver will end in your death. So, again,
it isn't the distance traveled that has anything to do with the
accident rate but the exposure time. I would like to interject the
idea that it is the exception, not the rule, that drivers of motor
vehicles involved in bicycle fatalities are the agressive bicycle
haters we all know from experience. Almost every case can be shown
to be the distraction (or total incompetence) of what would
normally be called a good driver. (Not to argue this obviously
incorrect assumption.)

Why is it that good cyclist tend to not have any better accident
avoidance than bad cyclists? Simply because the exposure time for
both is pretty much the same. Riding slowly down a highway gives
you essentially no more protection from passing automobiles than
riding at break-neck speed.

How do you improve your chances of living to a ripe old age? Taking
the routes less traveled may help. As you point out, there a routes
that are inherently safer than others. Taking every precaution to
minimize your exposure also helps.

However, you have shown conclusively that bicycle paths -- those
things thought to further minimize exposure -- do not work because
they retain the most dangerous portions of roads (intersections)
while maintaining the bicyclists out of sight and therefore out of
mind of the motor vehicle operator.

The only thing that will actually work is a law that places such
emphasis on the safety of bicyclists that motor vehicle operators
perceive bicyclists as a clear and present danger to their liberty
and financial health. At this point you can bet that they will
detect bicyclists as easily as they presently detect tractor-trailers.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc