Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:

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:
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.

 
I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more
crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
 
Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's
necessary to repeat the information.
 
Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people
seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
 
 

>
>
People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for
no reason.
>
As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a
different demographic than urban commuting in traffic,
different than large Sunday morning touring clubs, different
than Cat 5 criteriums, etc.  All of those contribute to the
overall non-path rate per mile yet each subgroup's rate is
different.
>
There may be reasons for a higher overall path injury rate
per mile which are severe for some subgroups and minimal for
others (a recumbent piloted by experienced rider for example
would expect fewer injuries from falls than an elderly
infrequent cyclist, especially with power assist).
>
I don't know that, but it's one  plausible explanation.