Crazy eBay offers

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:20:32 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 9:44:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2021 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 03:35:16 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:53:18 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:33:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/18/2021 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that gun ownership is "the" (i.e.
only) cause of high murder rates. OTOH, it makes no sense to claim that
high gun ownership is not a significant contributing factor.

Well, is it? After all several European countries have firearm ownership
nearly as great as the U.S. and only a tiny percent of the gun deaths.

If your assertion is correct how can this be?

Err, a pre-requisit?
If you don't have access to a gun, you can not decide to shoot someone.
If you do, then you can. Wheather you do or don't appears to be cultural.

Well yes, one needs a gun before one can shoot a gun. My point was
that gun ownership in several European countries was very similar to
that in the U.S. but the firearm murder rate was far lower, thus if
gun ownership is really a major factor in gun murders why it the level
so much higher in the U.S.
Gun ownership in _what_ European countries is very similar to the U.S.?
This chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
shows the U.S. at triple the ownership rate in Serbia, the highest
European country. Face it, the U.S. is a county rife with gun fetishists.
Which all gets back to the statement that "guns don't kill people,
people kill people"..
People with guns kill people, and at a far higher rate than people with
any other object. Unless, I guess, you're going to promote explosive
arsenals for public use.

Frank, you sure have a hard time even thinking anymore. The Netherlands have one of the lowest gun ownership rates in Europe and try to remember who were the first people overrun by Hitler?

Explain to us why the highest rates of suicide have nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of guns per 100,000 but the form of government they have? It really hurts you to know that people living under communism, your favorite form of government are far more likely to prefer and end to life than to live under the sort of tyranny you think is the perfect form of government.

Err,,, rates of suicide? Yup, Russia leads the list!... but second
with a score just 0.8/100,000 under Russia is Lithuania, a democratic
country. Next in line is Guyana which seems to be a democratic
country, and then Kazakhstan another democratic country... and then
Belarus tic nation, and Suriname, said to be a " representative
democratic republic".

So lets see... Communist countries - 1, non communist countries -5.

Yes sir, old Tommy really know his stuff.
--
Cheers,

John B.

n Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/18/2021 5:55 PM, John B. wrote:

snip
Oh, you mean that China has more then the entire population of the
U.S. in prison camps? Really?

Can you prove that? Or is it just another of your delusions? Or are
you just telling lies again?
LOL, I wonder if his belief comes from OAN, Fox, Breitbart, or some
other bat-**** crazy news outlet.
You and John should get together, you are both butt buddies. The Chinese use as slave labor virtually all of the 11 million r, one million they keep in prisons and they would more if it wasn't too expensive. Some 3 or 4 Million have disappeared into the Chinese concentration camps never to be seen of again. Anyone that China classifies as criminals also are used as forced labor, ANYONE that speaks a different language or even wears a beard are in the forced labor workforce. Apparently you don't even believe the New York Times since they have told horror stories of thousands of guards carrying spiked clubs and using thousands of cans of pepper spray every year. "A source also told Radio Free Asia in 2018 that a Chinese official had referred to the “reeducation” process as similar to “spraying chemicals on the crops. That is why it is general reeducation, not limited to a few people.”" Your love of communism and your belief that there couldn't possibly be anyone that would object
to it shows pretty plainly why no one wants you even on something as harmless as a city council.

Tommy, your original statement was that the Chinese had, what was it?
2/3rds, 1/3rd? (it was so illogical that I forget) of the population
in prison camps? And now you are talking about something like
1,000,000 in prison.

In the U.S. the prison population seems to be in the neighborhood of
639/100,000 population or about 2,124,981 people, the greatest in the
world. China has a prison population of about 121/100,000, about 19%
of the U.S., or about 1,741,581 people.

Tell us again. who are the bad guys?"
..
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:19:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 6:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 03:35:16 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:53:18 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:33:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/18/2021 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that gun ownership is "the" (i.e.
only) cause of high murder rates. OTOH, it makes no sense to claim that
high gun ownership is not a significant contributing factor.

Well, is it? After all several European countries have firearm ownership
nearly as great as the U.S. and only a tiny percent of the gun deaths.

If your assertion is correct how can this be?

Err, a pre-requisit?
If you don't have access to a gun, you can not decide to shoot someone.
If you do, then you can. Wheather you do or don't appears to be cultural.

Well yes, one needs a gun before one can shoot a gun. My point was
that gun ownership in several European countries was very similar to
that in the U.S. but the firearm murder rate was far lower, thus if
gun ownership is really a major factor in gun murders why it the level
so much higher in the U.S.

Gun ownership in _what_ European countries is very similar to the U.S.?
This chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
shows the U.S. at triple the ownership rate in Serbia, the highest
European country. Face it, the U.S. is a county rife with gun fetishists.

Which all gets back to the statement that "guns don't kill people,
people kill people"..

People with guns kill people, and at a far higher rate than people with
any other object. Unless, I guess, you're going to promote explosive
arsenals for public use.

You know Frank your arguments are irrefutable...

Thanks.

... and perhaps the U.S.
should apply them to overcome the grievous failings in societies'
practices. Just think of it we could eliminate some 800, or even more,
deaths simply by outlawing the ownership of bicycles.

Bad analogy.

1) You don't see me calling for outlawing the ownership of all guns.
I've been perfectly clear about that.

2) Why is it so hard for certain people to process benefit-vs-detriment
comparisons?

I think I now have on file six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of
bicycling. Every one of them has concluded that the benefits of
bicycling tremendously outweigh the detriments. The margins weren't even
close. IOW, if you banned bikes to prevent 800 annual deaths, the
overall death count would actually rise by a much larger amount.

I don't believe you can say that for several types of guns. And I really
don't see how you can say that for the stronger background checks
favored by the vast majority of Americans, even NRA members.

"six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of bicycling"? I would
have to ask, (1)studies done by who and (2) as opposed to what?

Are these studied done by competent medical establishments? Do the
compare bicycling to, for instance running or other cardio exercise ?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 4:19:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2021 6:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 03:35:16 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:53:18 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:33:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/18/2021 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that gun ownership is "the" (i.e.
only) cause of high murder rates. OTOH, it makes no sense to claim that
high gun ownership is not a significant contributing factor.

Well, is it? After all several European countries have firearm ownership
nearly as great as the U.S. and only a tiny percent of the gun deaths.

If your assertion is correct how can this be?

Err, a pre-requisit?
If you don't have access to a gun, you can not decide to shoot someone.
If you do, then you can. Wheather you do or don't appears to be cultural.

Well yes, one needs a gun before one can shoot a gun. My point was
that gun ownership in several European countries was very similar to
that in the U.S. but the firearm murder rate was far lower, thus if
gun ownership is really a major factor in gun murders why it the level
so much higher in the U.S.

Gun ownership in _what_ European countries is very similar to the U.S.?
This chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
shows the U.S. at triple the ownership rate in Serbia, the highest
European country. Face it, the U.S. is a county rife with gun fetishists.

Which all gets back to the statement that "guns don't kill people,
people kill people"..

People with guns kill people, and at a far higher rate than people with
any other object. Unless, I guess, you're going to promote explosive
arsenals for public use.

You know Frank your arguments are irrefutable...

Thanks.

... and perhaps the U.S.
should apply them to overcome the grievous failings in societies'
practices. Just think of it we could eliminate some 800, or even more,
deaths simply by outlawing the ownership of bicycles.
Bad analogy.

1) You don't see me calling for outlawing the ownership of all guns.
I've been perfectly clear about that.

2) Why is it so hard for certain people to process benefit-vs-detriment
comparisons?

I think I now have on file six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of
bicycling. Every one of them has concluded that the benefits of
bicycling tremendously outweigh the detriments. The margins weren't even
close. IOW, if you banned bikes to prevent 800 annual deaths, the
overall death count would actually rise by a much larger amount.

I don't believe you can say that for several types of guns. And I really
don't see how you can say that for the stronger background checks
favored by the vast majority of Americans, even NRA members.

Yes, all public health decisions involve a risk-benefit analysis -- from COVID to guns. High gun ownership equates to high gun related injuries. Contrary to Tom's suggestion, the places with the most guns do have the most gun-related deaths. https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state

You might want to look at another source as I find that the Alaska has
a gun murder rate of 5.3/100,000 and a suicide rate of 24.6/100,000
your reference uses the term "gun deaths per capita - 24.4"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi...#cite_no te-4

Washington, D.C. has a gun ownership of something like 25.9 and a gun
murder rate of 18.0 (and a total murder rate of 24.2).
39th in the Nation in gun ownership and first in the Nation for gun
murders.




Prohibiting gun ownership outright is not possible in the United States. Intentionally injuring another with a gun is already prohibited in every state. There are "red flag" laws in many states, registration laws of various types, etc. I don't know if there are a lot of loopholes left to close that would make a difference.

I do know the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact or a fatwah -- and it doesn't apply to the states except through the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects certain fundamental rights. That leaves quite a bit of room for reasonable, state-level gun legislation, but I have no idea what that legislation would be -- or at least I don't know what legislation would really make a difference except for more intensive policing and care for the mentally ill. I think left and right would like to see more intensive care for the mentally ill, but selling more intensive policing may be unpopular -- until it isn't.

-- Jay Beattie.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/19/2021 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:19:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 6:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 03:35:16 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:53:18 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:33:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/18/2021 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that gun ownership is "the" (i.e.
only) cause of high murder rates. OTOH, it makes no sense to claim that
high gun ownership is not a significant contributing factor.

Well, is it? After all several European countries have firearm ownership
nearly as great as the U.S. and only a tiny percent of the gun deaths.

If your assertion is correct how can this be?

Err, a pre-requisit?
If you don't have access to a gun, you can not decide to shoot someone.
If you do, then you can. Wheather you do or don't appears to be cultural.

Well yes, one needs a gun before one can shoot a gun. My point was
that gun ownership in several European countries was very similar to
that in the U.S. but the firearm murder rate was far lower, thus if
gun ownership is really a major factor in gun murders why it the level
so much higher in the U.S.

Gun ownership in _what_ European countries is very similar to the U.S.?
This chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
shows the U.S. at triple the ownership rate in Serbia, the highest
European country. Face it, the U.S. is a county rife with gun fetishists.

Which all gets back to the statement that "guns don't kill people,
people kill people"..

People with guns kill people, and at a far higher rate than people with
any other object. Unless, I guess, you're going to promote explosive
arsenals for public use.

You know Frank your arguments are irrefutable...

Thanks.

... and perhaps the U.S.
should apply them to overcome the grievous failings in societies'
practices. Just think of it we could eliminate some 800, or even more,
deaths simply by outlawing the ownership of bicycles.

Bad analogy.

1) You don't see me calling for outlawing the ownership of all guns.
I've been perfectly clear about that.

2) Why is it so hard for certain people to process benefit-vs-detriment
comparisons?

I think I now have on file six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of
bicycling. Every one of them has concluded that the benefits of
bicycling tremendously outweigh the detriments. The margins weren't even
close. IOW, if you banned bikes to prevent 800 annual deaths, the
overall death count would actually rise by a much larger amount.

I don't believe you can say that for several types of guns. And I really
don't see how you can say that for the stronger background checks
favored by the vast majority of Americans, even NRA members.

"six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of bicycling"? I would
have to ask, (1)studies done by who and (2) as opposed to what?

Are these studied done by competent medical establishments? Do the
compare bicycling to, for instance running or other cardio exercise ?

The papers were done by a variety of agencies, authors, etc. and
benefits vs. risks were computed by different means: years of life
gained vs. lost, medical costs saved vs. spent, some included costs to
society while others just costs to the cyclists, etc. Here's a partial
list:

20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
"around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.

7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.

77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
bike share system instead of using a car.

18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.

There are a couple others but I'd have to dig harder, and those should
suffice. AFAIK there's never been a scientific disagreement on this issue.

But there has been unscientific disagreement from "single issue"
fanatics. Some helmet pushers say it's better to not ride at all than to
ride without a helmet, and have even had that written into law. Some
infrastructure idiots claim it's not safe to ride until there's a
paradise of specially separated bike facilities.

Benefits vs detriments should be easy to understand, but idiots abound.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:55:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2021 11:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:19:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 6:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:44:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2021 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 03:35:16 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:53:18 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:33:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/18/2021 7:26 PM, John B. wrote:

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that gun ownership is "the" (i.e.
only) cause of high murder rates. OTOH, it makes no sense to claim that
high gun ownership is not a significant contributing factor.

Well, is it? After all several European countries have firearm ownership
nearly as great as the U.S. and only a tiny percent of the gun deaths.

If your assertion is correct how can this be?

Err, a pre-requisit?
If you don't have access to a gun, you can not decide to shoot someone.
If you do, then you can. Wheather you do or don't appears to be cultural.

Well yes, one needs a gun before one can shoot a gun. My point was
that gun ownership in several European countries was very similar to
that in the U.S. but the firearm murder rate was far lower, thus if
gun ownership is really a major factor in gun murders why it the level
so much higher in the U.S.

Gun ownership in _what_ European countries is very similar to the U.S.?
This chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate
shows the U.S. at triple the ownership rate in Serbia, the highest
European country. Face it, the U.S. is a county rife with gun fetishists.

Which all gets back to the statement that "guns don't kill people,
people kill people"..

People with guns kill people, and at a far higher rate than people with
any other object. Unless, I guess, you're going to promote explosive
arsenals for public use.

You know Frank your arguments are irrefutable...

Thanks.

... and perhaps the U.S.
should apply them to overcome the grievous failings in societies'
practices. Just think of it we could eliminate some 800, or even more,
deaths simply by outlawing the ownership of bicycles.

Bad analogy.

1) You don't see me calling for outlawing the ownership of all guns.
I've been perfectly clear about that.

2) Why is it so hard for certain people to process benefit-vs-detriment
comparisons?

I think I now have on file six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of
bicycling. Every one of them has concluded that the benefits of
bicycling tremendously outweigh the detriments. The margins weren't even
close. IOW, if you banned bikes to prevent 800 annual deaths, the
overall death count would actually rise by a much larger amount.

I don't believe you can say that for several types of guns. And I really
don't see how you can say that for the stronger background checks
favored by the vast majority of Americans, even NRA members.

"six different benefit-vs-detriment studies of bicycling"? I would
have to ask, (1)studies done by who and (2) as opposed to what?

Are these studied done by competent medical establishments? Do the
compare bicycling to, for instance running or other cardio exercise ?
The papers were done by a variety of agencies, authors, etc. and
benefits vs. risks were computed by different means: years of life
gained vs. lost, medical costs saved vs. spent, some included costs to
society while others just costs to the cyclists, etc. Here's a partial
list:

20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
"around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.

7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.

77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
bike share system instead of using a car.

18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.

There are a couple others but I'd have to dig harder, and those should
suffice. AFAIK there's never been a scientific disagreement on this issue..

But there has been unscientific disagreement from "single issue"
fanatics. Some helmet pushers say it's better to not ride at all than to
ride without a helmet, and have even had that written into law. Some
infrastructure idiots claim it's not safe to ride until there's a
paradise of specially separated bike facilities.

Benefits vs detriments should be easy to understand, but idiots abound.

--
- Frank Krygowski
While you can assume that those papers were all conducted in a perfectly scientific manner, the problem is that they assume that all riders have precisely the same chances of dying by chance on every ride. This is absolutely not the case since most of the riders who die in the USA are children riding on the wrong side of the road, running red lights or being otherwise totally unaware of their surroundings. I have no idea of how to correct for this other than complete statistical collections of age, years of bicycle experience and all of the conditions surrounding any particular fatality.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

While you can assume that those papers were all conducted in a perfectly
scientific manner, the problem is that they assume that all riders have
precisely the same chances of dying by chance on every ride. This is
absolutely not the case since most of the riders who die in the USA are
children riding on the wrong side of the road, running red lights or
being otherwise totally unaware of their surroundings. I have no idea
of how to correct for this other than complete statistical collections
of age, years of bicycle experience and all of the conditions surrounding
any particular fatality.

Wrong (as usual): Age 50-59 has the highest fatality rate.

"Bicycle Safety"
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html#tabs-1-2

What are the major risk factors?

- Adults aged 50 to 59 years have the highest bicycle death rates.

- Children (5-14 years) and adolescents (15-19 years) have the
highest rates of nonfatal bicycle-related injuries, accounting
for more than one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen
in U.S. emergency departments.

- Males die 6 times more often and are injured 4 times more often
on bicycles than females.

- Most bicyclist deaths occur in urban areas and at non-intersection
locations.

- Among bicyclist deaths, 37% had alcohol involvement either for
the motor vehicle driver or bicycle rider.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Am 20.04.2021 um 20:23 schrieb Tom Kunich:
While you can assume that those papers were all conducted in a
perfectly scientific manner, the problem is that they assume that all
riders have precisely the same chances of dying by chance on every
ride. This is absolutely not the case since most of the riders who
die in the USA are children riding on the wrong side of the road,
running red lights or being otherwise totally unaware of their
surroundings.

Some other problem is to assume what studies do without reading them
beforehand. The age distribution of bike fatalities is well known in
most OECD countries.

I have no idea of how to correct for this other than
complete statistical collections of age, years of bicycle experience
and all of the conditions surrounding any particular fatality.

You mean like the "Cross" study quoted in John Forester "Bicycle
transportation" which did exactly this for all fatalities in California
for one or two years in the 1960's by classifying which type of bike
accident has what mean age amongst the impacted people and which type of
accident has what fatality proportion?

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:58:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

While you can assume that those papers were all conducted in a perfectly
scientific manner, the problem is that they assume that all riders have
precisely the same chances of dying by chance on every ride. This is
absolutely not the case since most of the riders who die in the USA are
children riding on the wrong side of the road, running red lights or
being otherwise totally unaware of their surroundings. I have no idea
of how to correct for this other than complete statistical collections
of age, years of bicycle experience and all of the conditions surrounding
any particular fatality.
Wrong (as usual): Age 50-59 has the highest fatality rate.

"Bicycle Safety"
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html#tabs-1-2

What are the major risk factors?

- Adults aged 50 to 59 years have the highest bicycle death rates.

- Children (5-14 years) and adolescents (15-19 years) have the
highest rates of nonfatal bicycle-related injuries, accounting
for more than one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen
in U.S. emergency departments.

- Males die 6 times more often and are injured 4 times more often
on bicycles than females.

- Most bicyclist deaths occur in urban areas and at non-intersection
locations.

- Among bicyclist deaths, 37% had alcohol involvement either for
the motor vehicle driver or bicycle rider.

Will you EVER try to research anything before writing? Those statistics are from over a 20 year period. Children are between the ages of 15 and 19 in the statistical analysis and even then they account for the vast majority of accidents, usually non-fatal but then since these people move out of the non-children classification rapidly, the actual numbers of children being involved in every type of accident is greatly understated by the CDC statistics.

In fact bicycle injuries are not classified as such by the CDC but as "non-intentional injuries" and that is the third largest source of death to people over the age of 45 with cancers or heart disease being the first and second.

Look Jeff, I am not impressed with your 5 second research on things you don't understand. I have attempted to explain things to you but your entire focus is on proving me wrong and not being right about a single ****ing thing.. I would suggest you grow up but you don't have enough time to do so.

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:34:05 PM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 20.04.2021 um 20:23 schrieb Tom Kunich:
While you can assume that those papers were all conducted in a
perfectly scientific manner, the problem is that they assume that all
riders have precisely the same chances of dying by chance on every
ride. This is absolutely not the case since most of the riders who
die in the USA are children riding on the wrong side of the road,
running red lights or being otherwise totally unaware of their
surroundings.
Some other problem is to assume what studies do without reading them
beforehand. The age distribution of bike fatalities is well known in
most OECD countries.
I have no idea of how to correct for this other than
complete statistical collections of age, years of bicycle experience
and all of the conditions surrounding any particular fatality.
You mean like the "Cross" study quoted in John Forester "Bicycle
transportation" which did exactly this for all fatalities in California
for one or two years in the 1960's by classifying which type of bike
accident has what mean age amongst the impacted people and which type of
accident has what fatality proportion?

Rolf, the cross section of fatalities in Europe is very different than it is in the United States due to so many Europeans living within relatively easy bicycle commute distances to their places of work. There is virtually no bicycle commuting in the USA because the metropolitan areas are so large and spread out. We are just beginning to see bicycle commuting via public transportation that allows bicycles to be carried. There hasn't been enough time to develop reasonably accurate statistics from this.

I read Forester when he first printed his book but I cannot remember the results. And two or three years are not reliable statistics and most especially in California. The levels of skill here are amazing. They range from a small number of pro-racing level riders to people beginning to ride for their health in their late 40's and early 50;s completely unaware of normal riding safety practices. When I first started riding it was common to have a group of older riders in a club that would ride with beginner's groups and instruct us on proper etiquette. I haven't seen anything like that in quite a while. Right now, it would be almost unthinkable to ride from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe, a distance of only 200 miles (around 325 km) because the roads have been converted into high speed highways. But back in the 90's the club did that ride a couple of times.

Because of the way that they have age grouping of children, the actual injury and fatality rates of children a very greatly underestimated. Per year this group is involved in the overwhelming numbers of accidents.

Far too many riders in their 50's have heart attacks, fall into traffic and are classified as a bicycle accident. Just in the tiny group I ride with that consists of a dozen riders we have four people with pacemakers or serious arrhythmias. Now, granted that these are all above that 59 year age bracket, but these things start much earlier. Heart disease is the third largest cause of death for people 35-44.