Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Taking The Lane

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Taking The Lane

Old 03-11-19, 08:43 PM
  #151  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 12,078

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5778 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times in 279 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
I live in SoCal bro. If you find my statement hard to believe just tune into the news on any given day then tell us what type of story lead the news. I don't exaggerate.
I rode daily for about 15 years in Orlando while it was the cycling fatality leader of the nation and before it had bike lanes. So what?

We can agree to have different opinions, I hope.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-11-19, 09:16 PM
  #152  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 235 Times in 180 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
I rode daily for about 15 years in Orlando while it was the cycling fatality leader of the nation and before it had bike lanes. So what?

We can agree to have different opinions, I hope.
Except that's not an opinion its a counterpoint, and doesn't dismiss any of points I made. Florida is always in the top 10 and usually in the top 5. If there's any state that needs video as incident support Florida would be one of them.



Next: The No. 1 state for dangerous drivers is…

1. California



With over 300 hit and runs and over 3,000 deadly traffic accidents, California tops the list. | SeanPavonePhoto/iStock/Getty Images
  • Hit and runs: 337
  • Total driving fatalities: 3,623
California is another state that comes to mind when we think of horrendous traffic conditions. Sheer roadway volume — as well as droves of preoccupied drivers — are likely the biggest contributors to California’s dreadful driving statistics. They lead the way in both metrics analyzed for this list with an unfathomable 337 hit and runs reported and a total of 3,623 deadly traffic accidents in 2016.


The Cheat Sheet
KraneXL is offline  
Old 03-12-19, 01:08 AM
  #153  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 12,078

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5778 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times in 279 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Except that's not an opinion its a counterpoint, and doesn't dismiss any of points I made. Florida is always in the top 10 and usually in the top 5. If there's any state that needs video as incident support Florida would be one of them.
Next: The No. 1 state for dangerous drivers is…

1. California
With over 300 hit and runs and over 3,000 deadly traffic accidents, California tops the list. | SeanPavonePhoto/iStock/Getty Images
  • Hit and runs: 337
  • Total driving fatalities: 3,623
California is another state that comes to mind when we think of horrendous traffic conditions. Sheer roadway volume — as well as droves of preoccupied drivers — are likely the biggest contributors to California’s dreadful driving statistics. They lead the way in both metrics analyzed for this list with an unfathomable 337 hit and runs reported and a total of 3,623 deadly traffic accidents in 2016.


The Cheat Sheet
And here you conflate and ignore ... is that accidents per capita? Californian has a Lot more drivers . It also has a lot more freeways which are essential for commuters and don't allow cyclists.

The reason either St. Pete, Orlando, or Tampa regularly win the "Deadliest Cycling City" award is that it is calculated by fatalities per capita---and discusses exclusively Cycling deaths, not all fatalities. No one doubts that driving in LA is dangerous---but a lot of that road rage and a lot of the accidents are on limited access highways where there are no cyclists.

In fact, had this been a real debate, you would have cited an article like this one from 2014: (https://www.latimes.com/business/aut...027-story.html) "Bicycle traffic deaths soar; California leads nation"

Excerpt: "California, with 338 cyclists killed in collisions with motor vehicles, and Florida, with 329, had the highest totals during that period, the report said.

"They also had the largest increases in annual cyclist traffic fatalities from 2010 to 2012. Florida's deaths rose by 37 to 120 in 2012 while cyclist traffic fatalities in California rose by 23 to 123. California had the most bicyclists killed of any state in 2012."

Now lets compare populations:
Florida population: 20.98 million (2017)

California population: 39.54 million (2017)

So, by those numbers cycling in California as Twice as Safe as cycling in Florida.

And I rode through the worst periods in Florida's recent history for cycling deaths, in the deadliest city, not just the deadliest state .... and I was alright, and still am.

As I suggested above ... let's leave this one. In your opinion SoCal is deadly to cyclists .... The fact that no other SoCal riders are jumping in here screaming "Yeah, this place is a war zone" leads me to think that rider attitude, as much as environment, determines both one's perception of and incidence of close encounters of the auto kind.

Ride safe.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-12-19, 01:33 AM
  #154  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 235 Times in 180 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
And here you conflate and ignore ... is that accidents per capita? Californian has a Lot more drivers . It also has a lot more freeways which are essential for commuters and don't allow cyclists.

The reason either St. Pete, Orlando, or Tampa regularly win the "Deadliest Cycling City" award is that it is calculated by fatalities per capita---and discusses exclusively Cycling deaths, not all fatalities. No one doubts that driving in LA is dangerous---but a lot of that road rage and a lot of the accidents are on limited access highways where there are no cyclists.

In fact, had this been a real debate, you would have cited an article like this one from 2014: (https://www.latimes.com/business/aut...027-story.html) "Bicycle traffic deaths soar; California leads nation"

Excerpt: "California, with 338 cyclists killed in collisions with motor vehicles, and Florida, with 329, had the highest totals during that period, the report said.

"They also had the largest increases in annual cyclist traffic fatalities from 2010 to 2012. Florida's deaths rose by 37 to 120 in 2012 while cyclist traffic fatalities in California rose by 23 to 123. California had the most bicyclists killed of any state in 2012."

Now lets compare populations:
Florida population: 20.98 million (2017)

California population: 39.54 million (2017)

So, by those numbers cycling in California as Twice as Safe as cycling in Florida.

And I rode through the worst periods in Florida's recent history for cycling deaths, in the deadliest city, not just the deadliest state .... and I was alright, and still am.
I already know all that. I kept it simple because I gave you more credit than you gave me.

As I suggested above ... let's leave this one. In your opinion SoCal is deadly to cyclists .... The fact that no other SoCal riders are jumping in here screaming "Yeah, this place is a war zone" leads me to think that rider attitude, as much as environment, determines both one's perception of and incidence of close encounters of the auto kind.
On the other hand, it could be that they have no frame of reference? I do.
Ride safe.
And you do the same.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 03-12-19, 11:46 AM
  #155  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1866 Post(s)
Liked 348 Times in 253 Posts
It's yellow unicorn season.


That's why they always take the lane.

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 03-16-19, 02:03 PM
  #156  
Digital_Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,352

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Most likely user error. One of the many compromises you make with a less expensive camera is features. Not really a problem once you recognize its limitations. Despite all the hullabaloo you hear online about a camera's superior low-light capability, any good photography needs good light. If the footage is grainy it was probably taken at dawn or dusk.
As a former photographer, I agree with your statement, I have however seen photos and videos taken in good lighting that are still very grainy. Now granted I do not know what the settings were on the camera, but the results were grainy.

Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
There's also the possibility of using the wrong settings, poor handling, uploading, post-processing, etc. of the footage after it was acquired. Without knowing those details, this list is endless. The best advice is to learn your camera, and know its limitations. All cameras have them regardless of price.
Again, very true, and an experienced photographer can produce excellent results from "cheap" camera's, and an inexperienced photographer can produce crappy results from the most expensive state of the art equipment. I remember reading an article where a photographer had "inferior" equipment, but was producing EXCELLENT results. He is supposed to have gone into a camera shop with his portfolio, and asked if they had a camera that would let him take "better" photographs. The owner said, "no, but I have equipment that will make it easier for you to produce the quality work that you are producing."

Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
On the other hand, some cameras are just more forgiving in the "auto" setting and that's one of the conveniences you might get more of by paying more.
Again, very true.
Digital_Cowboy is offline  
Old 03-17-19, 11:42 AM
  #157  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,029

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1831 Post(s)
Liked 280 Times in 244 Posts
Always put it back after you're done. Semper Hawthorne. Ooohrah!
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dw231
Advocacy & Safety
36
08-15-15 05:05 PM
Chris516
Advocacy & Safety
11
05-22-13 02:25 PM
vol
Advocacy & Safety
12
12-09-12 01:25 AM
ckaspar
Commuting
78
08-14-12 06:46 AM
kevmk81
Advocacy & Safety
28
06-13-12 01:08 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.