HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pschimek@athena.mit.edu (Paul M Schimek)
Subject: Re: Should lights be req. Std. Equipment?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:19:06 GMT

Just a few more comments about the lighting controversy.

I basically agree with Steve Sergeant that lights should be standard equipment, at
least on most utility bikes, including the basic "mountain" or "hybrid" bikes that
have become the standard mass market bike.  Here are some additional reasons why:

1. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), as someone has already noted,
requires the sets of reflectors that come with all bikes.  These give
novice cyclists a false sense of security.  Also, if reflectors can be required, I
don't see any legal or ethical problems with requiring lights.
2. Probably the most useful type of light to have on a utility/commuter bike is a
generator light because you always have it and the batteries never run out. 
However, many cyclists have problems getting the cheap generator lights that are
commonly sold to work properly and consistently.  Factory installed generator
lights mounted on fenders would be much more reliable.  I have had good
experience with rented 10-speed utility bikes in France which were equipped with
front and rear generator lights. 
3. Just about every state requires lights on bikes after dark, but almost nowhere
is this enforced.  So the legislation alone doesn't solve the problem. And in my
experience, after-dark cyclists with lights are the exception and not the rule.
4. Most bikes sold in the US are sold only occassionally, and not as basic
transportation.  These occassional users will invariably find themselves riding
in the dark at some point: if they have a generator light already on the bike
there is a good chance they will use it.  
5. We should encourage the use of bikes as basic transportation and require that
at least some models are so equipped.  

I think there is a growing market for utility bikes.  Trek, for example, has
begun to offer "E" versions of its 700 and 720 cycles which come with rear rack,
fenders, and generator light.

The right combination of regulation, enforcement, and education might actually
make bike lighting and use more standard in the US, especially as bikes become
more acceptable as a mode of transport.
From: sulli_t@pyramid.unr.edu (Tim Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Swiss Army Bike
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:16:28 GMT
Reply-To: sulli_t@pyramid.unr.edu (Tim Sullivan)
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Department of Computer Science

In article <92322.122934TOM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> TOM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>How does one get one of these Swiss Army Bikes?  This might be the answer to
>Rednecks in four wheels...by the way, does it have a handle bar mount for a
>357 mag.?

To get one, better check with someone in Switzerland (sp?) with Net access.

A while back, when there was only rec.bicycles, someone posted a short 
history about the bicycle as used in warfare.  If I can find the article,
I'll repost it.  Had a lot of info about the Swiss bikes.

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: dkw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (David Wittenberg)
Subject: Re: REAL statistics on bicycle accidents (?)
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:07:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.154934.11385@schbbs.mot.com>, CMSC28@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Mark Hickey) writes:
|> Believe it or not, I found the following statistics in rec.climbing...
|> (don't ask why it was there.... it's a long story).  If true (make
|> your own judgement... I'm just passing it along), it says it all.....
|> 
|> >Collision with:        Accidents       Deaths          Injuries
|> 
|> >Car                     153829          1897            258732
|> >Object                   33614          1471             45175
|> >Pedestrian               17014           956             17493
|> >No collision             13029           553             17384
|> >Bicycle                  15187           126             15692
|> >Parked car                6817           108              8645
|> >All others*               1712            62              2637
|> 
|> >Total                   241202          5173            365758

The pedestrians oddly lethal.  Compare them to cars or bikes, and
you find one tenth as many collisions with peds than with cars, but
half as many fatalities, and less than one tenth as many injuries.
Compared to bike-bike collisions, there are about as many accidents
and injuries but twice as many deaths.  

Why should pedestrian - bicycle accidents be so lethal?  I wouldn't be
surprised if they were terribly underreported, so we only hear about
the most serious ones, especially lethal accidents.

--David Wittenberg
From: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: 100 People Surveyed, top 5 answers are on the board...
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 08:33:08 EST(-0500)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
Reply-To: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0

wade@hobbes.ucsd.edu (Wade Blomgren) writes:
>  The other 73% simply thought of something else that they have not 
> ridden.  It says nothing about whether they have or have not ridden a 
> bicycle (ever).

True.  On the other hand, it means that more people thought about
a bicycle than about anything else.

Obviously, as presented the survey is meaningless.  Good enough
for politics but not for anything else.

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Subject: Re: Request for Info on Bike Friendly Cities
Summary: Call the Seattle Engineering Department
Reply-To: jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:49:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.013627.28898@athena.mit.edu> pschimek@athena.mit.edu (Paul M Schimek) writes:
>For an urban transportation class I am doing a bike planning proposal for Boston.
>Seattle, WA -- I have nothing on Seattle yet

Call Peter Lagerway, Bicycle Coordinator for the City of Seattle,
c/o the Seattle Engineering Department, 206-684-7570.  He and his
staff (yes, a *real* bike programs office) have all sorts of 
innovative stuff, including:

* a "spot improvement" program to quickly fix bike hazards with
  minimal red tape
* a "city bike rack request" form (you want a rack on city property?
  send us a card...)
* a "minutes to downtown" bike commute time map, extending in 5-minute
  increments out to the 40-minute range in the north and south 'burbs.
* a *big* city bike map not limited to the usual "lanes/routes/paths"
  designations, but actually showing routes real cyclists use (what a
  concept!).  On the flip side of this "transportation" map is a "touring/
  recreational" map of the city, with the same base street map, showing 
  scenic loops.  And both sides include 100-foot-increment elevation 
  contours (!), which is quite helpful if you know Seattle :-).
* a report called "Burke-Gilman Trail Effects on Crime and Property
  Values", basically the results of a survey they did two years or so
  after the above-named trail went in.  It includes actual quotes 
  from residents, police, and real estate agents in the trail area.  
  Good for calming the "NIMBYs" who come out of the woodwork whenever 
  a "bike trail" goes into their neighborhood.  (I actually did this 
  here in Mountain View at a hearing for the new Stevens Creek Trail
  -- it worked!)
* a short video of, and engineering-ready plans for, "traffic circles"
  (circular traffic-calming planters placed in the middle of residential
  intersections, in lieu of 4-way stops.  Cars slow down to negotiate
  around the planter; bikes basically keep their speed and trajectory)

...and lots more.  Seattle has a real pro-bike city engineering department.

Anyone interested in "bike program" and "bikes on transit" developments 
and news from around the nation would do well to subscribe to Bicycle 
Forum, a quarterly newsletter published by BikeCentennial, 406-721-1776 
(Missoula, Montana -- another pro-bike city).

-- 
John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C      __C
jciccare@mv.us.adobe.com  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,    ='\<,
uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:415/903-0584 | (&)/(\)  (&)/(\)
=== "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO WORK ==
From: Alex Brozan <soap@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: 16 Nov 92 07:00 PST
Subject: Bicycle Trailers?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1702500018:000:1148
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!soap    Nov 16 07:00:00 1992


From: Alex Brozan <soap>
Subject: Bicycle Trailers?

/* Written  1:14 pm  Nov 15, 1992 by soap@igc.apc.org in igc:rec.bicycles */
/* ---------- "Bicycle Trailers?" ---------- */
From: Alex Brozan <soap>
Subject: Bicycle Trailers?



Hello... I am looking for information or advice on building
a bicycle trailer, that is, one that can be hooked onto the back of
a bicycle and will allow full range of turning and movement, etc.

I have seen several advertised, but they are invariably expensive
I know they are quite common in Europe and other countries, but here
in the U.S., hardly a  bike-frinedly country, they are few and far
between.

I would appreciate any info on how i might go about building on,
what a good design would be, where I can get parts, and
how I can keep the costs low (I was thinking under $200)

I was thinking I could get some wheels and maybe an axle at, say
Sears, and then lumber for the trailer bed, but am wondering how i would
construct the rest of it, ie, the part that would connect to the bike/

Please respond by e-mail as I check these conferences infrequently.


thank you,

alex brozan
tufts university e-house

Xref: sparky rec.bicycles.soc:1067 rec.bicycles.misc:1307
From: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Bicycle policy in Cuba (long, from sci.energy)
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:01:11 GMT
Reply-To: dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen)
Organization: Swarthmore College

I found this on the sci.energy board; thought it might be of interest.  I
left it intact so y'all can chase down all the references.

Enjoy,
--> Daniel Pedersen  -  Keren's Daddy
========================================================================

From news.cc.swarthmore.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!apple!mumbo.apple.com!michael.apple.com!ems Sun Nov 22 22:53:06 EST 1992
Article: 10849 of sci.energy
Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: CMSC28@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Mark Hickey)
Subject: REAL statistics on bicycle accidents (?)
Organization: Motorola
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:15:26 CST

Believe it or not, I found the following statistics in rec.climbing...
(don't ask why it was there.... it's a long story).  If true (make
your own judgement... I'm just passing it along), it says it all.....

>ran across traffic injury accident statistics for the state of Californ
>I don't claim that these are representative of the country as a whole.
>also wish they were more comprehensive, in terms of breaking bicycle
>injuries down by age of cyclist and fault on the accident itself.
>But they're all I could find on short notice.

>Collision with:        Accidents       Deaths          Injuries

>Car                     153829          1897            258732
>Object                   33614          1471             45175
>Pedestrian               17014           956             17493
>No collision             13029           553             17384
>Bicycle                  15187           126             15692
>Parked car                6817           108              8645
>All others*               1712            62              2637

>Total                   241202          5173            365758


>Interestingly, on a per accident basis, you're more likely to be killed
>in a car-car accident(1:81.1 accidents) than a car-bike accident(1:120.

>Also, the ratio of injuries to deaths is only slightly better for car-c
>accidents (1:136.4) than for car-bike (1:124.5).  This is particularly
>striking to me, because we don't have a ton of steel to protect us.
>The lower speed of travel seems to outweigh our vulnerability to injury

>I interpret the low injury-to-accident ratio for car-bike accidents to
>mean that for all practical purposes drivers don't get hurt by hitting
>a bicyclist.  I assume that in every case the bicyclist was injured, an
>perhaps even more than one bicyclist.  Even if it's only one bicyclist
>per accident, that's only one car occupant injured in every thirty
>accidents.


>-Mike Tamada
> Occidental College
> tamada@oxy.edu

*** Lots of stuff deleted before and after stats ***

Perhaps this will help settle the raging debate about "who is more
dangerous", perhaps not.... Maybe it's like all the tabloids or
20/20 or 60 minutes (video versions of tabloids)... never let the
facts stand in the way of a good story (or argument).

Mark (on your left) Hickey
From: ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: REAL statistics on bicycle accidents (?)
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:58:17
Organization: MIT/LCS Spoken Language Systems
	<1992Nov18.220714.12767@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
Reply-To: ilh@lcs.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: winnie-the-pooh.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: dkw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu's message of Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:07:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.220714.12767@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
dkw@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (David Wittenberg) writes:

   The pedestrians oddly lethal.  Compare them to cars or bikes, and
   you find one tenth as many collisions with peds than with cars, but
   half as many fatalities, and less than one tenth as many injuries.
   Compared to bike-bike collisions, there are about as many accidents
   and injuries but twice as many deaths.

   Why should pedestrian - bicycle accidents be so lethal?  I wouldn't
   be surprised if they were terribly underreported, so we only hear
   about the most serious ones, especially lethal accidents.

One possible reason is that in bicycle/pedestrian accidents, there are
two people who could be injured: the cyclist and the pedestrian.
Perhaps these figures include pedestrian injuries.  I think the injury
rates for bicycle/bicycle accidents are similar---again, two people.
In bicycle/car accidents, it is very unlikely the car driver would be
injured.  Just a guess...

--

                                Lee Hetherington
                                ilh@lcs.mit.edu
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Ticketing illegal cycling
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:11:24 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov16.195021.22279@cs.hut.fi> ovr@snakemail.hut.fi (Otto-Ville Ronkainen) writes:
>In article <1e8gdeINN2e5@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>>>stopping, so they shouldn't be run. If a stop sign is used only to establish
>>>a right of way and visibility is good, what is so bad about running it?
>
>Oh, add "and you can clearly see that nobody is coming".
>
>>   I invite you to walk or bike with me the mile between my home and my
>>place of employment, just once.  I think you'll get the idea. :-(
>
>Transatlantic flights don't fit my budget, could you give a brief description?

   Automobile drivers, at least in this part of the country, don't
obey traffic laws, and make things quite exciting for the unsuspecting
(and even the suspecting) pedestrian or bicyclist.  I don't know if
it's because they fail to see us, or just don't give a damn.  I have
at least two close calls each time I walk or bike to work or back.
   Of course, it's bad for automobilists, too, but usually all that's
at risk is their vehicle, not their body.  This is reflected in the
outrageous insurance premiums here even for "safe" drivers (i.e.
married, over 25, no accidents or moving violations) like myself.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
From: ovr@lk-hp-4.hut.fi (Otto-Ville Ronkainen)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Ticketing illegal cycling
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:50:21 GMT
Reply-To: ovr@snakemail.hut.fi (Otto-Ville Ronkainen)
Organization: L{nsi-Uudenmaan Keisarillinen Polyteknillinen Koulu

In article <1e8gdeINN2e5@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>>stopping, so they shouldn't be run. If a stop sign is used only to establish
>>a right of way and visibility is good, what is so bad about running it?

Oh, add "and you can clearly see that nobody is coming".

>   I invite you to walk or bike with me the mile between my home and my
>place of employment, just once.  I think you'll get the idea. :-(

Transatlantic flights don't fit my budget, could you give a brief description?

The last time I stopped at a stop sign was months ago. The last time
I ran a stop sign must have been years ago ;-)
--
Ott-Vill R______________________
ovr@snakemail.hut.fi
From: plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Ticketing illegal cycling
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:57:34 GMT
Organization: Brown University Planetary Geology
NNTP-Posting-Host: pilsner.geo.brown.edu

In article <1992Nov14.171324.21168@cs.hut.fi> ovr@snakemail.hut.fi (Otto-Ville Ronkainen) writes:
>In Europe stop signs are used only to indicate a dangerous crossing ie. a
>crossing in which it is impossible to check for other traffic without
>stopping, so they shouldn't be run. If a stop sign is used only to establish
>a right of way and visibility is good, what is so bad about running it?
>The same goes for turning right at a red light (which is illegal here).

   I invite you to walk or bike with me the mile between my home and my
place of employment, just once.  I think you'll get the idea. :-(
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: madine@cbnewsm.uucp (G. E. Madine, AT&T-BL/AL, cbnewsm.)
Subject: Request for statistics concerning bicycle helmet use in Holland.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:56:33 GMT
Keywords: Inujuries, solo crashes


At a meeting of our local bicycle advocacy group 4 days ago, we
viewed a slide show about bicycling in Leiden, Holland.  The photographer
is a U.S. citizen who lived for some time in Leiden.

I noticed during the slides of hundreds of utility-motivated cyclists
that not one was wearing a helmet.  Two children per adult driven bicycle
sitting in crude bicycle seats fore and aft.  None had helmets.  Passengers
sitting "sidesaddle" on rear racks.  No helmets.  The photographer
said he wore his own helmet for about 2 days there before unbearable 
local peer pressure stopped the practice.

I am not surprised by the lack of bicycle helmets in a different
culture.  And I am not going to criticize it.  What surprised and
disturbed me was the local opinion expressed by some at the meeting when
we discussed it briefly.  It was put forth that the lack of
car/bike accidents in Holland justified the attitude of safety.
When I pointed out that at least 8/10 bicycle crashes are solo in
the U.S., it was argued that the helmet's primary purpose was to
protect in car/bike accidents.  If that were true, I would think that
helmet makers and testing standards would be analyzing helmets for
something more (or different) than a gravity assisted impact from 1.5m
to 2m in the air.  But I should look at some statistics.

I am posting to ask if anyone might have seen
or heard about any bicycle crash + resulting injury statistics from
Holland?  It is considered the model country for Bicycle use in the
Western industrialized world.  (But it has been pointed out that
it is not a particularly good model for the U.S. because of population
distribution and geographic differences.)  Bicycle use is apparently so high
that I expect that bicycle traffic accidents get a high priority
in reports (relative to the U.S.) if for no other reason than
the lack of any other traffic to be involved in accidents.

What do bicycle crash + injury statistics tell about the low helmet
use in Holland?  And, for those who know, has helmet use increased
since 1986-89 when the slides I viewed were taken?  Please remember, I
want the statistics for local consumption.  I do not mean to criticize
the practice of a different culture.

Gary E. Madine, Allentown, PA, USA
gem@aloft.att.com


Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
From: jtkrist@ameris.ameritech.com (James T. Krist)
Subject: Re: Swiss Army Bike
Organization: Ameritech, Hoffman Estates, IL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:02:20 GMT


here's the article i was looking for yesterday ... 

Chicago Tribune, Thursday, October 10, 1991

NEW SWISS ARMY BIKE RUNS INTO RESENTMENT

GENEVA (AP) - The Swiss army's crack bicycle  troops  are  up  in
arms  over a new "combat bike" chosen to replace a model that has
hardly changed since its debut almost a century ago.

The 5,000 member force, believed to be the only one of  its  kind
in  the  world,  has  been  swept  by a wave of nostalgia for the
black-framed, single-gear version intruduced in 1905.

"The model still in use has survived the emergence of  airplanes,
two  world  wars,  computers  and  missile  technology,"  said  a
brochure commemorating this year's 100th anniversay of Swiss army
cyclists.

The new model has seven gears and weights 11 pounds less than the
one  it  is  to  replace  after  1993.   But there are widespread
feelings the army could do without it.

"Many believe  there  is  no  need  to  give  up  something  that
successfully  served  generaions,"  said  Maj.  Urs Ursprung, who
commands a battalion, in an interview.

Switzerland's  625,000-strong  reserve   force   is   rooted   in
centruries-old  tradition.   The  army  has not fought in foreign
wars since 1515, although Swiss mercenaries served  abroad  until
the French Revolution.

Even using the old model, the Swiss bicicle troops are  extremely
mobile.   The  bicycle  is  regarded as the most effective way of
moving infantry and is especially suited for Switzerland with its
short, mountainous distances.

"Over a cross-country distance of about 30 kilometers [18 miles],
they  outpace everybody else in the army," Ursprung said.  "Also,
while tanks or motorcycles move with much noise, cyclists advance
toward the enemy siliently over small field paths."

Economic reasons forced the change, explained Hugo Wermelinger, a
Defense Ministry spokesman.

The production cost of the 1905 model is about $2,000 because  it
has  few  standardized  parts,  while  a new bike costs $1,300 to
make, according to  Wermelinger.   Several  prototypes  underwent
rigid  testing  before  the  army  recently  presented  the final
version.

The gear shift is Japanese, the hypdraulic brakes are German  and
the  leather  saddle  is made in the Netherlands -- from hides of
Swiss alpine cows.

Ernst vod der Osten-Sacken of Aachen University, who  tested  the
bicycles  for  the  army at a special laboratory, dismissed fears
the new model would be prone to defects.

"It is more rugged than the most rugged mountain bike," he  said.
Weighing  in at 48 pounds -- almost four times the average weight
of a racing bike -- it can carry a load  of  up  to  370  pounds,
including the rider, personal equipment, ammunition and a machine
gun.




-- 
jtkrist@ameris.center.il.ameritech.com 			James T. Krist
1-708-248-5475 (voice) 			 Ameritech Services, Room 3C46
1-708-248-6046 (fax) 	   	      2000 West Ameritech Center Drive
				   Hoffman Estates, IL, USA 60196-1025