> > as for what road denizens are most malignly neglected, that > would be > > bicycles > [...]
> > In a factory, OSHA would not allow such circumstances to exist as > being to dangerous to the workers because of the unpredictable > movements caused by the blasts of air, the irregularities of > the road > surface, and the minimal precise control a rider has. > > In my car (or my bus when I was driving one in the city) if a driver > opened their door in front of me without checking their mirror, I > would take their door off with no danger to me or my > passenger(s). On > a bike, depending on the timing, you could get killed, either by > hitting the door/glass, or if avoiding that, by the car about > to take > the door off and get it out of your way! :-) > > I'll stick to automobiles, thank you. > The safety statistics don't back this up. In general you're safer on a bike than you are in a car, and there is safety in numbers, so the more bikes there are on the roads, the safer you are. This makes cities like London very safe for cyclists, with a very low death rate compared to car drivers. Most cyclist deaths here are women crushed between a left-turning lorry and the pavement barriers - studies are under way to find out why this happens to women more than men, and to educate cyclists and truck drivers of all sexes about the risk. Cyclists get more blame than they deserve for road shit, too. There's a good example of this earlier this week on the BBC website: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8319630.stm>. MPs wanting to go after cyclists for trivial traffic offences when the real problems on the roads, and the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths, are caused by motor vehicle drivers. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
