Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:19:13 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 11/15/2024 4:23 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:34:13 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 04:02:35 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:59:36 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:48:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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.

>
You post:
"in the center were some chunks of broken tree branches, over
an inch thick. He hit those and went down"
>
" tree roots had lifted
large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he was looking
at  something off to the side"
>
"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. "
>
I comment that
"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?"
>
All your examples show, from your descriptions, a definite lack of
attention on the part of the Cyclist.
>
Who (can't)"really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it."? Or,
in  your case, the third they say it.
>
>

>
I rode fifty miles yesterday, almost all of it a bike trail. I had no
accidents on the bike trail, but I almost hit a squirrel while riding
a quarter mile or so on a country road.
>
Does hitting a squirrel qualify as an accident?

>
>
Only if you crash after you hit him. And you must remember to notify
Frankie so he can add it to his "bike trails dangers"  list.

 
The incident made me wonder what qualifies as a "crash." It's pretty
clear that a motor vehicle "crash" must involve, at the very least,
marks left on a vehicle's paint. There are, of course, single vehicle
"crashes." How much damage needs to be done if a car hits a light or
power pole for it to qualify as a "crash." Does a little ding or a
scratch qualify?
 
  Is it a "crash" if a stone hits my windshield and cracks it. Is it a
"crash" if a tire or a piece of trim flies off a passing car and
damages another? Do both cars have to be moving?" Shortly after I
bought my truck a someone in a car parked next to me slammed open a
door and left a substantial ding. Was that a "crash?"
 
On to bicycle "crashes."
 
The leading and trailing edges of most bicycles is often rubber, so
would contact between two bicycle wheels that left marks on a tire be
a crash? Must a "crash" have to involve damage to the bikes, or is
damage to a rider enough?  Is it a crash if two bicyclist's handlebars
come into contact and leaves one or both with a bruised or bloody
finger? How about if neither rider goes down? Was it a crash when Joe
Biden couldn't unclip and went down?
 
Is it a crash if I get stung by a wasp as I ride? Is it a crash if I
hit a dog?  How about if I get bit by a dog? How about if I'm only
walking or running?
 
It seems to me that "studies" about "crashes" should define what
constitutes a crash, otherwise, the "study" is meaningless."
 
Actually, I believe that most "studies" are meaningless." Polling is a
study of sorts. The recent election polls is indicative of how
meaningless they can be."
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
The term 'crash' became popular once The Powers That Be
decided there are no 'accidents', possibly excepting being
hit by a meteorite.

I avoided a "crash" with the squirrel, but I think I might have
"crashed" into a fuzzy caterpillar. He/she suffered more damage than
me.

--
C'est bon
Soloman