Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:09:11 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

Am 14.11.2024 um 09:28 schrieb John B.:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 2:07 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:52:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 11/13/2024 10:35 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 10:13:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/13/2024 4:27 AM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:35:27 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:29:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 11/12/2024 4:44 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

>
I just did a web search for "walking helmet", and got pages of
stuff on
helmets for babies and toddlers learning to walk.  I guess that's a
thing these days; I must be out of touch.  Perhaps one day we'll
see a
generation unwilling to step outside without a helmet.

>
That'll be a sad day indeed. But the general trend toward "Danger!
Danger!" warnings is strong. At one time, Safe Kids recommended
that no
kid under age 10 be allowed to cross a street alone.
>
And there's this:
https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Bicycle-Safety.jpg
(Thanks, Jeff.)

>
I understand that some fear mongers actually want to ban bidirectional
side paths.

>
Didn't Frank argue that ALL bike lanes were dangerious. Or rather more
dangerious then the road?

>
No, I did not argue that.
>
And John, much like Tom, you need to rely much less on your "memory" and
much more on actual quotes of what I've said.
>
Quit emulating Tom.

>
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm

>
which is not "ALL bike lanes were dangerous. Or rather [ALL bike lanes
are] more dangerous then the road?"
>
spelling corrected and context clarified.
>
floriduh dumbassess 4th grade reading comprehension on display again

I wonder if those two guys really think their obvious distortions of my
positions are convincing anybody.

>
>
I quoted your exact words and provided documentation. How is that a
distortion?
>
Here it is again....
>
>
"Surprisingly, bike trails can be more dangerous than roads."
"[-] you're more likely go to the emergency room from riding a mile on
the bike trail than from riding a mile on the roads!"
--Frank Krygowski
    https://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred014.htm

>
This guy is baffled by the distinction between "ALL are" and "can be."
>
And for some data, see Transportation Research Record 1636 Paper No.
98-0009, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States" by William E. Moritz
>
His research paper referenced three different surveys of bike users, the
earliest of League of American Wheelmen members in 1974, one of about a
thousand Washington State adults in 1994, and one of League of American
Bicyclists members in 1996. Here are the resulting crash rates (per
million km) by facility. The numbers are in chronological order, so LAW
first, WA second, LAB third:
>
Major road with no facilities: 71, 69, 41
Minor road with no facilities: 65, 82, 59
Multiuse trail:                181, 91, 88.
>
All three surveys found multiuse trails to be much more dangerous than
ordinary streets and roads, per kilometer (or mile) traveled.
>
And as I've mentioned here before, I'm seeing the same thing with
reports of crashes among out club riders, even though only a small
portion of our rides use such trails.
>
BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. The guy in
question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a thick coating of
leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking several ribs.
>

Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes upon an
obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the obstruction but
can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?

I think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the chunks of wood.
He certainly should have been paying attention. He apparently forgot
that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
>
I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my best riding
friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking at
something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do know of some
of those ridges on two different bike trails that I occasionally use,
and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we approach them.
>
I also remember two different club members who crashed on a different
local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had washed across the
trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One of those guys
suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
>
Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a normal road.
Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance people don't allow
things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. Motorists would not
put up with those.

 
You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over,  an
obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or ignores it and
the trail is at fault.

>
Have you learned the difference between "at fault" and "more dangerous" yet?

But is it "more dangerious"?  Or is it "more dangerious if you ignore
the fact that this is not a clean, paved, highway"?

The examples that Frank described as examples all seemed to be
obstructions that were visible... if the cyclist had been looking.

--
Cheers,

John B.