A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who is a real cyclist ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old September 10th 18, 01:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,426
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On 9/9/2018 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:28:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/6/2018 6:45 PM,
wrote:

This would indicate that for every 7 Million miles traveled on bicycles some bicyclist is killed.


Other estimates are far better. Most estimates claim over 10 million
miles ridden per bike fatality.

On the surface that makes motor vehicles approximately 11 times safer than bicycles.


That's largely because of the tremendous number of miles driven on
freeways. The bike to car comparison is much closer on the sorts of
roads that both bikes and cars are allowed to use.

But even that looks at only part of the picture. There have been at
least five studies that evaluated the benefits vs. risk of cycling.
Because of the moderate exercise built into daily life from biking, the
lack of pollution, the lack of harm to others, etc. every study ever
done on the topic has found the benefits of bicycling _greatly_ outweigh
its tiny risks. Nobody has ever claimed that sitting on one's butt in a
car increases one's health, quality of life or longevity.

In other words, if you examine the big picture and include all causes of
death, riding a bike is actually safer than NOT riding a bike. You can't
say that for driving a car.

About your crap about head injuries causing the majority of deaths on bicycles - SO WHAT?


It goes beyond "so what." That factoid is absolutely false. Jute and
other helmeteers claim that 75% (or whatever percent) of bike fatalities
"involve a head injury." That's carefully phrased weasel wording. If
your chest is run over by a truck and you have a scratch on your
forehead, one could say that your death "involves a head injury." (And
let's remember that some helmet promotion studies literally counted cuts
to the ears as "head injuries.")

The real question is: What percentage of bicyclist deaths are _caused_
by head injury - or really, brain injury?

According to the best data I could find on the subject, 45% of the 800
or so annual U.S. bike deaths are due to brain injury. That total
includes both the helmeted and the unhelmeted fatalities.

For comparison, 40% of the 4000+ annual U.S. pedestrian deaths are due
to brain injury. The percentages are quite close; in other words,
bicycling is nothing special regarding TBI deaths. And in absolute
numbers, that means about 360 bicycling TBI deaths, vs. 1600 pedestrian
TBI deaths.

And John Pucher of Rutgers has published estimates that pedestrians are
at over three times higher risk of fatality PER MILE than bicyclists.

The risk of bicycling TBI fatalities (or even debilitating TBI injuries)
is highly exaggerated. It's not that it never happens; but it happens
far less than to pedestrians, or to people just walking around their homes.

The data's available. But the "Cycling is dangerous!" meme is now so
common and powerful that it's rare for anyone to actually look for the data.


Actually no Frank. Cause of death is CLEARLY written on a post mortem exam and car fatalities are ALWAYS given a post mortem.

So when they attribute deaths to head injuries that is exactly what it is.

....
So we can agree that most bicycle fatalities are caused by head trauma...


Sorry, I can't agree based on what I've found.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, in Victor G. Coronado et.
al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United
States, 1997‑2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1‑32
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6005a1_w
shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just 325
bicyclist traumatic brain injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total
annual TBI fatalities from all causes averaged 53014.

Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
Motorists 7955 15%
Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%

Also note from the above data that only 44.5% of cyclist fatalities
(325/730) were due to head injuries .

The occasional claim that 75% of fatally injured cyclists die of head
injuries is false.

Most often, that 75% factoid is stated something like this: "Up to 75%
of cyclist deaths involve a head injury." But the words "up to" are a
method of exaggerating everything from weight loss diets to investment
returns. Even if true, they state an upper limit, not a typical value.

More significant, "INVOLVE a head injury" is a far cry from "are caused
by a brain injury." Head injuries are not the same as brain injuries.
Head injuries, by definition, include minor scratches abrasions and
bruises above the neck, which are pretty likely if someone's been run
over by a truck.

Flattened chest and scratch on the ear? That "involves" a head injury.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #92  
Old September 10th 18, 01:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 20:38:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/9/2018 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:28:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/6/2018 6:45 PM,
wrote:

This would indicate that for every 7 Million miles traveled on bicycles some bicyclist is killed.

Other estimates are far better. Most estimates claim over 10 million
miles ridden per bike fatality.

On the surface that makes motor vehicles approximately 11 times safer than bicycles.

That's largely because of the tremendous number of miles driven on
freeways. The bike to car comparison is much closer on the sorts of
roads that both bikes and cars are allowed to use.

But even that looks at only part of the picture. There have been at
least five studies that evaluated the benefits vs. risk of cycling.
Because of the moderate exercise built into daily life from biking, the
lack of pollution, the lack of harm to others, etc. every study ever
done on the topic has found the benefits of bicycling _greatly_ outweigh
its tiny risks. Nobody has ever claimed that sitting on one's butt in a
car increases one's health, quality of life or longevity.

In other words, if you examine the big picture and include all causes of
death, riding a bike is actually safer than NOT riding a bike. You can't
say that for driving a car.

About your crap about head injuries causing the majority of deaths on bicycles - SO WHAT?

It goes beyond "so what." That factoid is absolutely false. Jute and
other helmeteers claim that 75% (or whatever percent) of bike fatalities
"involve a head injury." That's carefully phrased weasel wording. If
your chest is run over by a truck and you have a scratch on your
forehead, one could say that your death "involves a head injury." (And
let's remember that some helmet promotion studies literally counted cuts
to the ears as "head injuries.")

The real question is: What percentage of bicyclist deaths are _caused_
by head injury - or really, brain injury?

According to the best data I could find on the subject, 45% of the 800
or so annual U.S. bike deaths are due to brain injury. That total
includes both the helmeted and the unhelmeted fatalities.

For comparison, 40% of the 4000+ annual U.S. pedestrian deaths are due
to brain injury. The percentages are quite close; in other words,
bicycling is nothing special regarding TBI deaths. And in absolute
numbers, that means about 360 bicycling TBI deaths, vs. 1600 pedestrian
TBI deaths.

And John Pucher of Rutgers has published estimates that pedestrians are
at over three times higher risk of fatality PER MILE than bicyclists.

The risk of bicycling TBI fatalities (or even debilitating TBI injuries)
is highly exaggerated. It's not that it never happens; but it happens
far less than to pedestrians, or to people just walking around their homes.

The data's available. But the "Cycling is dangerous!" meme is now so
common and powerful that it's rare for anyone to actually look for the data.


Actually no Frank. Cause of death is CLEARLY written on a post mortem exam and car fatalities are ALWAYS given a post mortem.

So when they attribute deaths to head injuries that is exactly what it is.

...
So we can agree that most bicycle fatalities are caused by head trauma...


Sorry, I can't agree based on what I've found.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, in Victor G. Coronado et.
al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United
States, 1997?2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1?32
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6005a1_w
shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just 325
bicyclist traumatic brain injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total
annual TBI fatalities from all causes averaged 53014.

Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
Motorists 7955 15%
Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%

Also note from the above data that only 44.5% of cyclist fatalities
(325/730) were due to head injuries .

The occasional claim that 75% of fatally injured cyclists die of head
injuries is false.

Most often, that 75% factoid is stated something like this: "Up to 75%
of cyclist deaths involve a head injury." But the words "up to" are a
method of exaggerating everything from weight loss diets to investment
returns. Even if true, they state an upper limit, not a typical value.

More significant, "INVOLVE a head injury" is a far cry from "are caused
by a brain injury." Head injuries are not the same as brain injuries.
Head injuries, by definition, include minor scratches abrasions and
bruises above the neck, which are pretty likely if someone's been run
over by a truck.

Flattened chest and scratch on the ear? That "involves" a head injury.


I have had two crashes severe enough to break bones and in neither
case did I hit my head, or at least there no marks on my helmet
indicating that they had ever hit the ground.
  #93  
Old September 17th 18, 10:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 5:39:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/9/2018 6:55 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:28:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/6/2018 6:45 PM,
wrote:

This would indicate that for every 7 Million miles traveled on bicycles some bicyclist is killed.

Other estimates are far better. Most estimates claim over 10 million
miles ridden per bike fatality.

On the surface that makes motor vehicles approximately 11 times safer than bicycles.

That's largely because of the tremendous number of miles driven on
freeways. The bike to car comparison is much closer on the sorts of
roads that both bikes and cars are allowed to use.

But even that looks at only part of the picture. There have been at
least five studies that evaluated the benefits vs. risk of cycling.
Because of the moderate exercise built into daily life from biking, the
lack of pollution, the lack of harm to others, etc. every study ever
done on the topic has found the benefits of bicycling _greatly_ outweigh
its tiny risks. Nobody has ever claimed that sitting on one's butt in a
car increases one's health, quality of life or longevity.

In other words, if you examine the big picture and include all causes of
death, riding a bike is actually safer than NOT riding a bike. You can't
say that for driving a car.

About your crap about head injuries causing the majority of deaths on bicycles - SO WHAT?

It goes beyond "so what." That factoid is absolutely false. Jute and
other helmeteers claim that 75% (or whatever percent) of bike fatalities
"involve a head injury." That's carefully phrased weasel wording. If
your chest is run over by a truck and you have a scratch on your
forehead, one could say that your death "involves a head injury." (And
let's remember that some helmet promotion studies literally counted cuts
to the ears as "head injuries.")

The real question is: What percentage of bicyclist deaths are _caused_
by head injury - or really, brain injury?

According to the best data I could find on the subject, 45% of the 800
or so annual U.S. bike deaths are due to brain injury. That total
includes both the helmeted and the unhelmeted fatalities.

For comparison, 40% of the 4000+ annual U.S. pedestrian deaths are due
to brain injury. The percentages are quite close; in other words,
bicycling is nothing special regarding TBI deaths. And in absolute
numbers, that means about 360 bicycling TBI deaths, vs. 1600 pedestrian
TBI deaths.

And John Pucher of Rutgers has published estimates that pedestrians are
at over three times higher risk of fatality PER MILE than bicyclists.

The risk of bicycling TBI fatalities (or even debilitating TBI injuries)
is highly exaggerated. It's not that it never happens; but it happens
far less than to pedestrians, or to people just walking around their homes.

The data's available. But the "Cycling is dangerous!" meme is now so
common and powerful that it's rare for anyone to actually look for the data.


Actually no Frank. Cause of death is CLEARLY written on a post mortem exam and car fatalities are ALWAYS given a post mortem.

So when they attribute deaths to head injuries that is exactly what it is.

...
So we can agree that most bicycle fatalities are caused by head trauma....


Sorry, I can't agree based on what I've found.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, in Victor G. Coronado et.
al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury Related Deaths, United
States, 1997‑2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6, 2011 / 60(SS05); 1‑32
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6005a1_w
shows, in table 10, that for 1997-2007 there were an average of just 325
bicyclist traumatic brain injury (TBI) fatalities per year. The total
annual TBI fatalities from all causes averaged 53014.

Activity Avg. TBI Fatalities/yr Percent of total
Motorists 7955 15%
Pedestrians 1825 3.4%
Motorcyclists 1361 2.6%
Bicyclists 325 only 0.6%

Also note from the above data that only 44.5% of cyclist fatalities
(325/730) were due to head injuries .

The occasional claim that 75% of fatally injured cyclists die of head
injuries is false.

Most often, that 75% factoid is stated something like this: "Up to 75%
of cyclist deaths involve a head injury." But the words "up to" are a
method of exaggerating everything from weight loss diets to investment
returns. Even if true, they state an upper limit, not a typical value.

More significant, "INVOLVE a head injury" is a far cry from "are caused
by a brain injury." Head injuries are not the same as brain injuries.
Head injuries, by definition, include minor scratches abrasions and
bruises above the neck, which are pretty likely if someone's been run
over by a truck.

Flattened chest and scratch on the ear? That "involves" a head injury.

--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, these are totally misleading because most victims of car collisions are actually killed by massive head trauma even if they are marked massive bodily injuries. You're just as dead if a car smashes you to pieces regardless of the cause on the post mortem.

And something to wonder about - EVERYONE that dies outside of a physicians direct care gets a post mortem. Any dope addict on the street with an armful of needle marks or a drunk that wanders out in front of a passing car.

Why did they not give Antonin Scalia a post mortem?
  #94  
Old September 18th 18, 06:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,826
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:04:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:

I think I already described to you that I was driving home across the San Mateo Bridge and that I was passed by every single car doing 100 mph. Finally here comes a cop doing about 90 mph in an SUV. What does he do? He pulls me over for being suspicious - I was going the limit of 60 mph on the bridge.


You rebel, you!

AJ
Iconoclast
  #95  
Old September 18th 18, 11:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:17:52 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:04:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:

I think I already described to you that I was driving home across the San Mateo Bridge and that I was passed by every single car doing 100 mph. Finally here comes a cop doing about 90 mph in an SUV. What does he do? He pulls me over for being suspicious - I was going the limit of 60 mph on the bridge.


You rebel, you!

AJ
Iconoclast


While I was pulling out my registration etc. he saw that I'm a handicapped driver and sort of was embarrassed. But through a misunderstanding I didn't have the latest license sticker on so he issued me a ticket for that. I had sent everything in with all of the proper payments but there is this new smog standard that you have to get every couple of years in California and I had gotten the incorrect version and sent all of that paperwork in. But of course DMV didn't send me anything back saying that I had gotten the incorrect smog test. Cost me several hundred to get that all straightened out.

Thanks to that concussion I don't have any real balance. It has to all be done via eyesight. So I can't walk a straight line and I can't tip my head back and balance on one foot hence I am handicapped and can only be issued a drunk test via the "breathalyzer".

In the meantime they have made pot legal and they have no way of testing for inhibited driving due to pot.
  #96  
Old September 19th 18, 08:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
dave[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:39:29 -0700, sltom992 wrote:

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:17:52 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:04:15 PM UTC+1,
wrote:

I think I already described to you that I was driving home across the
San Mateo Bridge and that I was passed by every single car doing 100
mph. Finally here comes a cop doing about 90 mph in an SUV. What does
he do? He pulls me over for being suspicious - I was going the limit
of 60 mph on the bridge.


You rebel, you!

AJ Iconoclast


While I was pulling out my registration etc. he saw that I'm a
handicapped driver and sort of was embarrassed. But through a
misunderstanding I didn't have the latest license sticker on so he
issued me a ticket for that. I had sent everything in with all of the
proper payments but there is this new smog standard that you have to get
every couple of years in California and I had gotten the incorrect
version and sent all of that paperwork in. But of course DMV didn't send
me anything back saying that I had gotten the incorrect smog test. Cost
me several hundred to get that all straightened out.

Thanks to that concussion I don't have any real balance. It has to all
be done via eyesight. So I can't walk a straight line and I can't tip my
head back and balance on one foot hence I am handicapped and can only be
issued a drunk test via the "breathalyzer".


The British are always profoundly amazed at the American walk the line
drunk test. It's very much a matter of the officer's opinion and has no
basis in science at all. I for one would not wish my future to be held
solely in the hands of on officer who may have had a bad day and be
looking to take it out on someone. The breathaliser at least is
moderately consistent, not high on it's own power and uncaring of skin
colour.

In the meantime they have made pot legal and they have no way of testing
for inhibited driving due to pot.


There are a lot of perfectly legal drugs for which they can't test
either. Many pain killers advise against driving. There is no real easy
answer to the problem of impaired driving.
--
davethedave
  #97  
Old September 19th 18, 04:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default Who is a real cyclist ?

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-7, davethedave wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:39:29 -0700, sltom992 wrote:

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:17:52 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:04:15 PM UTC+1,
wrote:

I think I already described to you that I was driving home across the
San Mateo Bridge and that I was passed by every single car doing 100
mph. Finally here comes a cop doing about 90 mph in an SUV. What does
he do? He pulls me over for being suspicious - I was going the limit
of 60 mph on the bridge.

You rebel, you!

AJ Iconoclast


While I was pulling out my registration etc. he saw that I'm a
handicapped driver and sort of was embarrassed. But through a
misunderstanding I didn't have the latest license sticker on so he
issued me a ticket for that. I had sent everything in with all of the
proper payments but there is this new smog standard that you have to get
every couple of years in California and I had gotten the incorrect
version and sent all of that paperwork in. But of course DMV didn't send
me anything back saying that I had gotten the incorrect smog test. Cost
me several hundred to get that all straightened out.

Thanks to that concussion I don't have any real balance. It has to all
be done via eyesight. So I can't walk a straight line and I can't tip my
head back and balance on one foot hence I am handicapped and can only be
issued a drunk test via the "breathalyzer".


The British are always profoundly amazed at the American walk the line
drunk test. It's very much a matter of the officer's opinion and has no
basis in science at all. I for one would not wish my future to be held
solely in the hands of on officer who may have had a bad day and be
looking to take it out on someone. The breathaliser at least is
moderately consistent, not high on it's own power and uncaring of skin
colour.

In the meantime they have made pot legal and they have no way of testing
for inhibited driving due to pot.


There are a lot of perfectly legal drugs for which they can't test
either. Many pain killers advise against driving. There is no real easy
answer to the problem of impaired driving.
--
davethedave


While I have run into cops who are power crazed I adjudge them to be rather rare. Though you have to remember that all it takes is for one of these to use the code for "officer needs assistance" and without asking any questions the responding cops will treat you as a public danger and only until to are completely neutralized with they start asking questions. But these questions leading to why the cop would have put out that call can have consequences. The cop that went crazy on me is in a rather low job now with him being relegated to staffing the police booth at the farmer's market and such. Every time I walk by I look at him and smile. Plainly he won't be getting any promotions at our police station and no one else wants him. He should have a nice long career reflecting on pulling a gun out and telling me he would blow my brains out.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now I'm a real cyclist! jms UK 0 July 30th 09 03:51 PM
Are you a real cyclist? Tom Crispin UK 34 February 5th 09 02:27 AM
At last I'm a Real Cyclist! Steve C[_2_] UK 33 May 23rd 08 12:47 PM
300 lb. cyclist for real stop_me_NOT Racing 0 December 9th 05 03:17 AM
Fat Cyclist: It's like reality TV, except it's real. And there's no TV. Meg Worley Racing 0 August 21st 05 07:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.