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.