Shocking footage of Florida collision shows moment group ride hit by driver of SUV

perce wrote:

Sorry, I wasn't listening. What are you on about?

Nothing someone with a below-par IQ would be interested in, so don't worry yourself. 

Nope, you've lost me there. Aren't you the one that married a milk bottle?

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Nothing someone with a below-par IQ would be interested in

perce wrote:

Nope, you've lost me there. 

I thought as much, don't worry. 

You'll have to speak up, I'm hard of hearing. Actually, you may be right about my sub- par IQ - when I won the Guardian prize crossword I received as a prize a copy of a book by Alex Bellos called '' Can you Solve  My Problems''. I'm ashamed to say there are several problems in there I can't solve.

perce wrote:

You'll have to speak up, I'm hard of hearing.

Sure, I SAID...

Rendel Harris wrote:

You really have a problem with being wrong, don't you? in 2021 42,939 people were killed in the USA in road incidents. 12.9 per 100,000 population. In the same year 1558 people died in road incidents in the UK, 2.3 per 100,000 population. So it's nearer five times as many per 100,000 people, so what are you describing as "wrong as demonstrated"?

We were talking about cyclist safety.

That said, if you want to widen the discussion to all road users, you need to account for the fact that the US has 16 times more road than the UK, and as such, drives quite a bit more -- almost exactly 10 times the vehicle mileage, in fact.

Could you please answer the question as to what you are describing as "wrong as demonstrated"?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Could you please answer the question as to what you are describing as "wrong as demonstrated"?

The claim that US roads are 4 times more lethal than UK roads.  You're welcome.

dh700 wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Could you please answer the question as to what you are describing as "wrong as demonstrated"?

The claim that US roads are 4 times more lethal than UK roads.  You're welcome.

 

3.75 times fatalerer, but what's .25 amongst friends eh?
 

The researchers looked at data from 1990 to 2018 for Germany, Denmark, the UK, and the US. John Pucher is a professor emeritus at Rutgers University. Ralph Buehler is a professor and the chair of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech. Both specialize in urban transportation and much of their research focuses on international comparisons, like their latest study.

"The study found that the fatality rate for bike riders is also obscenely high in the US at 6 deaths per 100M kilometers. The UK saw 1.6 bike fatalities, Germany 1, and Denmark 0.9. The US has nearly seven times as many cyclist deaths per mile as Denmark." 

RDaneel wrote:

3.75 times fatalerer, but what's .25 amongst friends eh?

Only if one ignores the difference in miles traveled.

Quote:

The researchers looked at data from 1990 to 2018 for Germany, Denmark, the UK, and the US. John Pucher is a professor emeritus at Rutgers University. Ralph Buehler is a professor and the chair of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech.

Nice citation -- those two have collaborated on a number of papers, so your sloppy reference is insufficient.

Quote:

"The study found that the fatality rate for bike riders is also obscenely high in the US at 6 deaths per 100M kilometers.

That's some significant magic considering that no one has ever tracked cycling mileage in the US to any useful degree of accuracy.  And doing so is quite difficult, because such a high percentage of US cyclists are children -- and not many fourteen year olds have a clue how far they ride.

For the record, in order for that 6/100M km estimate to be correct ( in 2021, for example ), US cyclists would have to ride only 1.5 billion km annually.  That's an average of around 110 km annually, per cyclist.  Meanwhile, Strava alone recorded 1.3 billion miles cycled in the US ( cf: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/did-you-run-further-than-the-average-american-this-year-heres-how-you-stack-up ).  If you think 90% of miles are Strava'd, you have another think coming.  Strava has about 35% fewer total users worldwide than the US has cyclists.

So, you may want to reconsider citing junk science that cannot possibly be in the neighborhood of accurate.

dh700 wrote:

 

Only if one ignores the difference in miles traveled.

 

Nice citation -- those two have collaborated on a number of papers, so your sloppy reference is insufficient.

 

That's some significant magic considering that no one has ever tracked cycling mileage in the US to any useful degree of accuracy.  And doing so is quite difficult, because such a high percentage of US cyclists are children -- and not many fourteen year olds have a clue how far they ride.

For the record, in order for that 6/100M km estimate to be correct ( in 2021, for example ), US cyclists would have to ride only 1.5 billion miles annually.  That's an average of around 110 km annually, per cyclist.  Meanwhile, Strava alone recorded 1.3 billion miles cycled in the US ( cf: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/did-you-run-further-than-the-average-american-this-year-heres-how-you-stack-up ).  If you think 90% of miles are Strava'd, you have another think coming.  Strava has about 35% fewer total users worldwide than the US has cyclists.

So, you may want to reconsider citing junk science that cannot possibly be in the neighborhood of accurate.

 

Hilarious! That's a long winded way of saying you don't understand stuff. The "junk science" literally takes into account miles travelled, you know the per 100M kilometres bit. Now one could argue that using a per head of population is the better metric but you don't understand that either so.....

Sloppy reference lol  

https://www.calbike.org/urban-transportation-research-bike-fatalities/

And you have of course rebutted my reference to the above study by and I remind you, 
John Pucher professor emeritus at Rutgers University and Ralph Buehler professor and the chair of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, with your back of a fag packet sloppy calculation, more lolz.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here dear boy! 

Surprised you didn't chuck in a Trumpian "fake news!! rallying cry!. Disappointed! 

RDaneel wrote:

Hilarious! That's a long winded way of saying you don't understand stuff. The "junk science" literally takes into account miles travelled, you know the per 100M kilometres bit.

Talk about not understanding "stuff".  I just explained -- literally in that paragraph -- that no one has accurately measured miles-cycled in the US.  And they certainly didn't 33 years ago, at the beginning of the window alleged in that study.

I further illustrated by how much the estimate used in that paper must be wrong.

Quote:

Sloppy reference lol

What is funny about me having to tell you how to cite properly, and even providing you with examples of same?  Nothing, in my book.

RDaneel wrote:

And you have of course rebutted my reference to the above study by and I remind you, 

John Pucher professor emeritus at Rutgers University and Ralph Buehler professor and the chair of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech, with your back of a fag packet sloppy calculation, more lolz.
I think you're on a sticky wicket here dear boy! 

Are you really so clueless as to think that (any) two academics are infallible?  They are not.

So, rather than your rather pathetic attempt at argument-by-authority, why don't you explain how -- exactly -- the arithmetic by Pucher and Buehler that you love so much, is possible?  In light of, as I said, the incomplete data we have from Strava showing that vastly more miles are ridden than your academic pals claimed.

RDaneel wrote:

Surprised you didn't chuck in a Trumpian "fake news!! rallying cry!. Disappointed!

Not nearly as disappointed as I am, in the quality of your discourse and/or your ability to comprehend the topic at-hand.  Perhaps you can continue to cover for those failings by throwing in more ad hominem attacks?

To put all too fine a point on the problem here, which you are unable to understand: Pucher and Buehler claim to have calculated the fatality rate per miles-cycled in the US, despite the latter number not existing.  They further claim to have performed this calculation ( going back 33 years no less! ) using "official data", but here's what the NHTSA has to say about their own "official data":

https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/bicycle-safety/data... wrote:

More importantly, as mentioned above, in most areas of the country, measures of exposure are lacking. Exposure to traffic and crashes is affected by the number of trips as well as where, when, and for how long a bicyclist rides. The lack of data accounting for the percentage of people on bicycles riding in various situations means we are not able to calculate a rate of crashes for any one location at any given time. This not only hinders full understanding of how bicyclist safety is affected by the built environment, roadway infrastructure, or traffic conditions, but makes comparing safety and risk across the transportation network challenging.

(snip)

Improving data on bicycling transportation is a critical need. A research roadmap developed for AASHTO’s Council on Active Transportation calls “improving data on pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities” a high priority (Dill et al., 2021). While crash data is the main source of safety data, a comprehensive nonmotorized safety analysis often means being able to access and integrate a wide array of data from sources and disciplines. Key to achieving better understanding of safety is improving police reported crash data, improving exposure data, and increasing the frequency of travel surveys.

As I said previously, you may want to reconsider the wisdom of citing junk science -- particularly that from Messers Pucher and Buehler.

"Now one could argue that using a per head of population is the better metric but you don't understand that either so....."

Are you so clueless as to think I wouldn't rather believe actual professors with backgrounds in the subject being discussed along with many other studies (aka junk science?) that support their research rather than a supercilious bloke on the internet?  Well I'll be damned. 
Argument by authority is because neither you nor I are an authority on the subject so how the fucking hell else (apart from your ridiculous back of a fag packet calculations) do you propose to prove US roads are no more dangerous than European ones. And on that bombshell I'm oot! 

RDaneel wrote:

"Now one could argue that using a per head of population is the better metric but you don't understand that either so....."

I understand the pros and cons of using per capita metrics.  What no one likely understands is why you think this comment is relevant, here.

RDaneel wrote:

Are you so clueless as to think I wouldn't rather believe actual professors with backgrounds in the subject being discussed along with many other studies (aka junk science?) that support their research rather than a supercilious bloke on the internet?  Well I'll be damned. 

Your veneration of the infallibility of "actual professors" reveals a lot -- and lot that you'd probably not like to be revealed.  You probably even think that peer review works.

RDaneel wrote:

Argument by authority is because neither you nor I are an authority on the subject so how the fucking hell else (apart from your ridiculous back of a fag packet calculations) do you propose to prove US roads are no more dangerous than European ones. And on that bombshell I'm oot! 

And this is where your entire argument -- such as it as -- falls apart, because I am an authority on this subject.  And I know all of these statistics, most of them by-heart.  And I know what can be calculated from extant data, and what cannot be.

And, more to the point, the NHTSA agrees with me, and specifically says that the official data which Pucher and Buehler claim to have used __does not exist__.

So again, if you are going to cite this junk science by Pucher and Buehler, explain to us how it is possible that they performed the calculation they claimed, with "official data" as they claim, when that official data does not exist.

If you cannot do that, and we all know that you cannot, simply admit that you were wrong, and lacked a sufficient grasp on the topic to argue with someone who does possess such.

dh700 wrote:

RDaneel wrote:

"Now one could argue that using a per head of population is the better metric but you don't understand that either so....."

I understand the pros and cons of using per capita metrics.  What no one likely understands is why you think this comment is relevant, here.

RDaneel wrote:

Are you so clueless as to think I wouldn't rather believe actual professors with backgrounds in the subject being discussed along with many other studies (aka junk science?) that support their research rather than a supercilious bloke on the internet?  Well I'll be damned. 

Your veneration of the infallibility of "actual professors" reveals a lot -- and lot that you'd probably not like to be revealed.  You probably even think that peer review works.

RDaneel wrote:

Argument by authority is because neither you nor I are an authority on the subject so how the fucking hell else (apart from your ridiculous back of a fag packet calculations) do you propose to prove US roads are no more dangerous than European ones. And on that bombshell I'm oot! 

And this is where your entire argument -- such as it as -- falls apart, because I am an authority on this subject.  And I know all of these statistics, most of them by-heart.  And I know what can be calculated from extant data, and what cannot be.

And, more to the point, the NHTSA agrees with me, and specifically says that the official data which Pucher and Buehler claim to have used __does not exist__.

So again, if you are going to cite this junk science by Pucher and Buehler, explain to us how it is possible that they performed the calculation they claimed, with "official data" as they claim, when that official data does not exist.

If you cannot do that, and we all know that you cannot, simply admit that you were wrong, and lacked a sufficient grasp on the topic to argue with someone who does possess such.

 

Ferme ta gueule! A traffic statistics and travel accident expert across multiple countries as well as a materials engineer! Who da thunk it! Are there any realms you're not expert in!? Oh educating people, definitely not good at that. 
And I should bow down to your supposed Authority on the subject despite not a shred of evidence to back up your claim to be such an Authority. But but you "know all of these statistics, most of them by-heart" so that's really convinced me, yeah probably not.

And your own lovely little link, what no one likely understands is why you think this comment is relevant, here. I didn't mention peer review, supporting studies isn't peer review ducky.

Now much as I've absolutely loved conversing with you, these Chalfont really do need checking, love to the family. 

RDaneel wrote:

Ferme ta gueule! A traffic statistics and travel accident expert across multiple countries

The United States is only one country.  If you cannot even count to one, you are clearly wasting my time here.

RDaneel wrote:

as well as a materials engineer! Who da thunk it! Are there any realms you're not expert in!?

Yes, there are some -- and unlike you, I remain quiet on those topics.

RDaneel wrote:

Oh educating people, definitely not good at that. 

As a matter of fact, I have mentored many folks professionally, and taught a bunch of others skills like welding and driving and woodworking.  This, however, requires a student who is capable of learning, and unfortunately, you come up well short of that bar -- as you repeatedly evidence in this thread.

RDaneel wrote:

And I should bow down to your supposed Authority on the subject despite not a shred of evidence to back up your claim to be such an Authority.

And by "not a shred", you apparently mean references to the official source of US traffic data -- the NHTSA -- which confirms my claim.  And also a reference to Strava data that illustrates that your professors cannot have correctly calculated the US fatality rate.

Other than that conclusive proof of the point, "not a shred".

We are still waiting, by the way, for you to stop with the pathetic ad hominem attacks and make even an attempt at explaining how your Messers Pucher and Buehler could have calculated the US fatality rate from "official data" ( their words ) when the official source of said data confirms that, even today, the required data simply does not exist.  And of course, if it doesn't exist today, it didn't exist 33 years ago when Pucher and Buehler allege that they were able to start their calculation.

Have you anything to say on the actual topic, or will you just continue to hide behind more desperate attempts at insult?

dh700 wrote:

There are about twice as many cyclists in the US as there are people total in the UK.

There are 54 million cyclists in the US, even when using the very broad definition of cyclists as being "those who took part in the activity at least once a year." Last time I looked I'm pretty sure the UK had rather more than 27 million people in it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-...

Rendel Harris wrote:

There are 54 million cyclists in the US

No, that's the number of adult cyclists. An additional 70m or so children cycle.

A whole bunch of different studies have confirmed that around 33% of the US population cycles, and that's been the case for many years now (IOW, even before pandemic boom).

https://velo.outsideonline.com/news/study-103-7-million-americans-ride-b...

Firstly, that's "34 percent of Americans age three or older rode a bike at least once in 2014". At least once in 365 days, by any reasonable or sensible definition somebody who rides a bike once a year is not "a cyclist" - 2/3 of Americans classified as "cyclists" ride a bike twice a month or less. Secondly, even if every single one of those 103.7 million Americans was actually a regular cyclist, the population of the UK is currently 67.3 million so saying that there are twice as many cyclists in the US as there are people in total in the UK would still be nonsense.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Firstly, that's "34 percent of Americans age three or older rode a bike at least once in 2014".

Right, that's the number of cyclists.  Unless you are aware of some magic which prevents occasional cyclists from adding to that fatality total, they necessarily count.

Rendel Harris wrote:

At least once in 365 days, by any reasonable or sensible definition somebody who rides a bike once a year is not "a cyclist"

Again, no.  Everyone who mounts a bicycle can be killed while doing such, and therefore, are appropriately included in the denominator of that ratio.

In fact, a fairly strong argument can be made that those occasional, and typically inexperienced, cyclists are more likely to wind up in the numerator of that ratio than an average cyclist is.

Rendel Harris wrote:

2/3 of Americans classified as "cyclists" ride a bike twice a month or less. Secondly, even if every single one of those 103.7 million Americans was actually a regular cyclist, the population of the UK is currently 67.3 million so saying that there are twice as many cyclists in the US as there are people in total in the UK would still be nonsense.

Again, you are wrong.  103.7 million is nearly a decade old.  Both the total population and the percentage of cyclists have increased since then.

The current official US population is 335,910,924.  34% of that is 114,209,714.  When we account for the pandemic cycling boom, not to mention the organic growth in outdoor activity over the past decade, we arrive at a number very close to double the UK population -- even if that hurts your feelings.

dh700 wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

There are 54 million cyclists in the US

No, that's the number of adult cyclists. An additional 70m or so children cycle. A whole bunch of different studies have confirmed that around 33% of the US population cycles, and that's been the case for many years now (IOW, even before pandemic boom). https://velo.outsideonline.com/news/study-103-7-million-americans-ride-b...

My road safety stats come from the WHO, NHTSA and DfT websites. I follow these pretty closely because it's part of my job. The US has a poor record on road safety, particularly so for a western developed nation. Shockingly, the road death rate actually increased in the US during the pandemic period, despite the lower traffic volumes due to the restricted movement during the various lockdowns. Data shows that there was an increase in speeding and DUI. This is in direct contract to every other developed antion, where road death rates fell in the lockdown period due to the lower levels of traffic. Some states perform particularly poorly. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

My road safety stats come from the WHO, NHTSA and DfT websites. I follow these pretty closely because it's part of my job. The US has a poor record on road safety, particularly so for a western developed nation. Shockingly, the road death rate actually increased in the US during the pandemic period, despite the lower traffic volumes due to the restricted movement during the various lockdowns. Data shows that there was an increase in speeding and DUI. This is in direct contract to every other developed antion, where road death rates fell in the lockdown period due to the lower levels of traffic. Some states perform particularly poorly. 

Cool story.  Not sure if you had a point, but regardless, the explanation for your observation was included in my first comment above -- US law enforcement has abdicated their responsibility to enforce traffic law, and it is basically "the Wild West" now.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Florida is probably peak motornormativity

It's well known here by cyclists as the most dangerous state in the nation to cycle in, although it's sometimes second. It's too bad, as it has some of the best weather for year round cycling, and is essentially flat.

Florida has a terrible road safety record.

Pains one to think, let alone say it... one-eyed and blind come to mind.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=chmZjISjR4U