On Apr 9, 4:55*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while
cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die
while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at
least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on
the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many
--)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1
in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for
regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski
error of 1 in 130,000.

If you prefer that number, fine. *

Excuse me? Is that how you do science, Frank Krygowski? Krygo, he say,
"Any number is good enough!" Earlier today you claimed that a cyclist
has only a 1 in 130,000 chance of dying on the road, now you claim it
is 1 in 81,500.

I think cyclists might take an interest when their chances of dying on
the roads this year doubles between one post and the next. Any cyclist
who trusts you after this, Krygowski, needs his head read.

I have no need to dispute it,
because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is
still next to the bottom of the list I posted.

Oh no, you've misunderstood again, either because you know nothing of
statistics, or because you're congenitally stupid, or because you're
congenitally dishonest. I didn't say the chances of a cyclist dying on
the road this year is 1 in 81,500. That just sets the upper, most
favourable parameter. Once you subtract from that people who were
counted in the 57m "cycling population" but whose only contact with a
bike was sitting on one in an LBS, where the risk of a fatality is
very low, then we get into the nitty-gritty of determining the risk to
people we would all recognize as
as cyclists. We're heading down past 1 in 65,000 very rapidly, Krygo.

Clearly, cycling for actual cyclists, rather than number-inflators, is
more than twice as dangerous as the 1 in 130,000 lie (which you
already confessed to above) that you tried to pass off on us from your
disgraceful stand on the coffin of a cyclist killed on the road.

Here's that list again:

"...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_
by Laudan:

You will die of heart disease: *1 in 340
You will die of cancer: *1 in 500
You will die from a stroke: *1 in 1700
You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300
You will die in an accident: *1 in 2900
You will die in an auto accident: *1 in 5000
You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000
You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700
You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000
You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000
You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000
You'll drown: *1 in 50,000
You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000
You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000"

McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his
estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. *

That sentence contains several lies. I haven't said anything is
"LETHAL". I merely asked a question. I answered it myself because the
information you, Krygowski supplied, was clearly fraudulent. The
answer is in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" But you,
Krygo, like the slimeball you are, preferred to screech the lie that I
think cycling is particularly dangerous. You have to be really
ignorant and probably to suffer a reading comprehension problem too,
to conclude that. You can go see where, well before this, I concluded
something quite different from what you screech I said.

Readers can compare
to the other dangers in the list.

We've already determined, from a source supplied by Krygowski himself,
that per trip cycling is 11 times as lethal as motoring, and per mile
cycling is 2.9 times as lethal as motoring. If Krygo now no longer
wants to stand by those numbers, of course no one will be surprised.
To Krygo any number is good enough, and he'll stand by it for five
minutes before he throws out a new one. Half, double, ten time, ten
magnitudes, why should Krygowski care? All numbers are the same to
Krygowski.

If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant
of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both.

The problem with Krygo's hysterical and ridiculous claims is not so
much that the ignorant and the wishful thinkers among cyclists will
believe him but that he and his kind brings cycling advocacy into
disrepute and counterproductively stultify amenity and legal
development.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!