Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On 11/14/2024 1:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
Re-read, Roger. Yes, potholes are more common on roads than on bike
trails. But the crashes I described were not caused by potholes, in part
because potholes are a well known hazard that road cyclists watch for.
>

They still kill and injure cyclists, potholes that is, and tend to be more
significant hazards in general with sharper edges deeper, and obscured by
traffic, mind you in a self selecting way I’m more concerned about potholes
with the car than my bikes.

Do potholes kill and injure cyclists? Perhaps to some degree. But the data I posted still showed bike trails to cause far more crashes than ordinary roads, despite the horror of potholes on roads.

Autumn leaves and stout fallen branches are definitely _not_ motor
vehicle derived. Instead, they are kicked or blown aside by passing
cars. They may possibly, occasionally, lie in the dead center of the
lane for a short while if the road has near zero car traffic, but that's
no a problem for a cyclist smart enough to ride in the tire track zone.

 The segregated stuff in london, doesn’t seem to get sprayed leaf litter,
generally caught by whatever is the segregated, I can only think of one
cycle lane that gets fair bit of leaf litter, which seems to be from the
overhead trees than kicked by cars, seems to have enough cycle traffic to
keep it as just muck than leaves.

Please remember the data I referenced was talking about not on-street bike lanes, but instead about separated rail trails and linear parks. Around here, anyway, such trails do have nearby trees. Oddly enough, those trees drop leaves in autumn. They lay on the trails until the governing authority blows them off - if indeed they ever do.

If you don't believe surface debris and surface maintenance problems
contribute to the higher per-km crash rates found for bike paths, please
do give your alternate explanation.
>
>

Since your data seems to be cherry picked from the 90’s I suspect as ever
your information is far from accurate.

You have an excellent capacity for ignoring data that you don't like.
I gave a good citation for the research paper that generated the data. Why not read it and tell me where the researchers went wrong? Or post a link to other research that shows the opposite?
--
- Frank Krygowski