Relative risk
 

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

- Frank Krygowski

Relative risk
 

On Dec 6, 6:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


"The UCL team suggests that Government calculations of risk for
cycling would be more accurate if cycling were only compared to the
data for driving on general purpose roads - stripping out motorways...
"

"Another suggestion is that when it comes to risk, cyclists should be
compared to low mileage drivers whose risk factor is between 15 and
100 per cent higher than the average... "

"According to their research, those most at risk when travelling are
men aged between 17 and 20 for driving... " (Well, that explains "...
their most eye-catching findings is that cycling is a safer than
driving for young men between 17-20 years old.")

(These just upon a quick, partial persusal.)

That's all fine, though - looks like thoughtful, reasonable analysis.
(Surprise: Information derived from data can suck!) I for one have
never thought bicycling was inherently especially dangerous.

Relative risk
 

On 07/12/12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


If you want to base your life decisions on someone else's data, fine.
Why would we care if you rode 180,000 km and had a 1:150 chance of fatal
injury or 1:15 or 1:1500.

Learning proper road riding technique is about not dying at all.

And above average cycle control, traffic observance, escape route
planning, Matrix Ninja crash avoidance skills and sporting prowess has
everything to do with not dying unnecessarily.

--
JS.

Relative risk
 

On 07/12/12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


Funny that on that web page there is a link to "Cycling at night? View
our tips on an accident free journey."

http://www.cycleassist.co.uk/5-must-...time%2Bcycling

Which starts with;

"Cycling is becoming more and more dangerous and night time conditions
make riding even more difficult than usual."

Wow, Danger! Danger!

I wish they'd get their message clear.

--
JS.

Relative risk
 

On Dec 6, 6:42 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

"The UCL team suggests that Government calculations of risk for
cycling would be more accurate if cycling were only compared to the
data for driving on general purpose roads - stripping out motorways...
"

"Another suggestion is that when it comes to risk, cyclists should be
compared to low mileage drivers whose risk factor is between 15 and
100 per cent higher than the average... "

"According to their research, those most at risk when travelling are
men aged between 17 and 20 for driving... " (Well, that explains "...
their most eye-catching findings is that cycling is a safer than
driving for young men between 17-20 years old.")

(These just upon a quick, partial persusal.)

That's all fine, though - looks like thoughtful, reasonable analysis.
(Surprise: Information derived from data can suck!)

It does, however, seem to be leaning toward "we should be comparing
bicycling to something more dangerous; then the *same risk* doesn't
look so dangerous by comparison."

I for one have
never thought bicycling was inherently especially dangerous.

Relative risk
 

On Dec 6, 9:02*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

The hazards of riding in traffic could not be more obvious.
-----

- gpsman

Relative risk
 

On Dec 7, 10:34*am, gpsman wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:02*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

I think that's what Steve Jobs said about cancer research, before he
tried to cure his by diet instead of science.

- Frank Krygowski

Relative risk
 

On 8/12/2012 5:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 7, 10:34 am, gpsman wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

I think that's what Steve Jobs said about cancer research, before he
tried to cure his by diet instead of science.


Like some people, certain cancers are incurable using science, or herbs.

--
JS

Relative risk
 

On Dec 9, 3:37*pm, James wrote:
On 8/12/2012 5:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 7, 10:34 am, gpsman wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling....

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

I think that's what Steve Jobs said about cancer research, before he
tried to cure his by diet instead of science.

Like some people, certain cancers are incurable using science, or herbs.

What I've read is that Jobs had an unusual type of pancreatic cancer
that actually was quite curable. But he ignored doctors' advice and
sought to treat it organically, so to speak, by modifying his diet.
He should have gone with medical science instead.

- Frank Krygowski

Relative risk
 

On Dec 9, 1:37 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 3:37 pm, James wrote:



On 8/12/2012 5:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 7, 10:34 am, gpsman wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

I think that's what Steve Jobs said about cancer research, before he
tried to cure his by diet instead of science.

Like some people, certain cancers are incurable using science, or herbs.

What I've read is that Jobs had an unusual type of pancreatic cancer
that actually was quite curable. But he ignored doctors' advice and
sought to treat it organically, so to speak, by modifying his diet.
He should have gone with medical science instead.


http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/should.htm