On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:31:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/17/2017 1:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-17 10:36, jbeattie wrote:


So what your saying is that I pay nothing extra insurance-wise for
owning a bike. It is covered by insurance that I already own. (:
OTOH, there are whole other things called "auto insurance policies"
-- specially for autos! And they cost a lot! ):


That is the same as saying that welfare costs us nothing. _Everyone_ is
paying for the risk of cycling including home owners who never ride. Is
that fair? I don't think so but that's the way it is.

Oh, quit the bull**** about the "risks of cycling." There have been at
least five different studies on the risks vs. benefits of cycling,
measured in different ways - for example, health care dollars spent vs.
saved, years of life lost vs. gained, etc. EVERY study found that
cycling is by FAR a net benefit.

So in insurance terms, you've got things backwards. _Everyone_ is
getting reduced insurance premiums and reduced health care costs from
cycling, even the people who never ride.

IOW, quit the "Danger! Danger!" implications. You may ride like an
idiot, but even you don't tip the scales in the direction you claim.


Statista has it that 66.52 Million cyclists while Velonews says 103.7
million. If we use the average, than it is 85 million cyclists.

I don't find the number of bicycle deaths in 2016 but I did find "an
increase of 13%" so I assume that we can use 720 X 1.13 = 813.

If my figures are accurate then that is bicycle fatality rate of 1 per
104,551 cyclists.

Overall traffic fatalities covering all road users seems to be 57,177
out of some 214 million driving licenses and 85 million cyclists or
say 300 million so the rate is 1 in 57,372.

Yes Sir! Cycling is a dangerous activity!

(although apparently less dangerous than anything else one can do on
the highway :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.