EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?

EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
-- http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7man...PIpuchertq.pdf --
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

On 6 Apr, 00:24, Andre Jute wrote:

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

I didn't, until it was too late.

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it

I do when there is dust or smoke (sometimes).

because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

Get yourself a couple of nubile nurses to give you a vigorous rub down
after bathing you twice a day. You can afford it, and you'll live as
long as the money lasts. Champagne for breakfast. Porridge and
kedgeree. Barley wine with lunch, including steak followed by a Cuban
Panatella. Eat dinner after sundown with a ginger beer.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted.

Those matches may give you a shock if the head jumps off, when you
light your panatella, better get the nurse to do that.

Low level pollution, fats in food,

If you eat the fat, the match head can't set it alight.

and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

Don't go walking in the woods unless you keep one eye on the branches
above and one on the roots below, and one eye looking behind for the
bogeyman. If you have a fourth eye, this can guide your way. Walking
in the woods is hard work. Those spare eyes are expensive as well.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion

I thought there is only one way to do the locomotion.

for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.

That's the one.

Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

You should get TOP TRUMPS


6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller.

This must be the reason for carrying at least one 36 spoke talisman.
With two you can ride a bicycle.

A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

But what if you wore a seat-belt? Well a harness then (full body), if
you were on rollers.


7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians

I hear clogs can make one pretty sure-footed.

and
cyclists,

Tyre tread patterns help enormously.

in exactly the same way as we need

Huh, by order of the JUTE, part of the ministry of (im)mobility?

to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER

Yep it's the falling and getting smashed up by a motor car which is
the problem.

THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY,

Now two's enough!

OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,

That's tree felling, done by fellers round here.

ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

Is this representative of the party line?


9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine.

The nanny state is what people want. 1984 seems to be misused by
those with power and misunderstood by the mass.

THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

And who's going to pay for it all?


***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

You got a full face visor?


***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

Looks 5 days too late.

On Apr 5, 4:24*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
--http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf--
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...The_Scream.jpg
Cycling is that scary.

It is less scary if you keep the wheels pointing down towards the
pavement and not up in the air. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

It is also helpful if there are signs that tell you when you are going
to crash. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

-- Jay Beattie.

On Apr 5, 5:53*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:24*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
--http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf--
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

Seehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg
Cycling is that scary.

It is less scary if you keep the wheels pointing down towards the
pavement and not up in the air. *http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

It is also helpful if there are signs that tell you when you are going
to crash.http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

-- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

D'oh. Here's the link. http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_imp...et/2769059222/
A very helpful sign, although it is hard getting airborn like the
picture. I really have to work at it.

Jay Beattie wrote:

See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...The_Scream.jpg
Cycling is that scary.

It is less scary if you keep the wheels pointing down towards the
pavement and not up in the air. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

It is also helpful if there are signs that tell you when you are going
to crash. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

-- Jay Beattie.

3rd link same as the second. Can you fix? The third sounds interesting.

Mark J.

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Apr 5, 5:53 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

Seehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg
Cycling is that scary.

It is less scary if you keep the wheels pointing down towards the
pavement and not up in the air. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

It is also helpful if there are signs that tell you when you are going
to crash.http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrudoff/3806225861/

-- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

D'oh. Here's the link. http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_imp...et/2769059222/
A very helpful sign, although it is hard getting airborn like the
picture. I really have to work at it.

Thanks for the fix. I was curious about that sign.

Mark J.

On Apr 5, 4:24*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
--http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf--
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

An interesting and thought provoking topic Andre.

However, those comparisons may be skewed to show bicycling as being
more dangerous. How about a statistic which evaluates the relative
risk based on TIME (one hour in a car versus one hour on a bicycle).
This is a more realistic statistic and is probably more favorable to
showing that cycling is not as dangerous as the other measures
indicate.

In statiscs there are liars, outliers and out and out liars

I was under the impression that cycling was safer than driving a car.
In the US, 37 000 people are killed on the roads in vehicular
accidents every year. Cycling deaths are about 700 per year. Problem
with any cycling statistic is that the cycling mileage estimates vary
between 6 and 20 billion and in some cases even higher (100 billion).

Is it fair to compare distance when a car takes approx 1/3 of the time
to travel each mile? How many cyclists match the "average" distance of
12 000 miles per year on their bicycle? A lot of us who post here are
probably in the 10 000 per year range but this would be considered
well above average.

My 2 cents

Phil H

On Apr 5, 5:24*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
--http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf--
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

Admittedly, I only skimmed the .pdf but, like all these scientific
studies, it fails in America's case because it doesn't address the
psychological addiction of Americans to automobiles. Most Americans
can't even engage the world unless it's through an automobile. Can't
even visualize who they are except as a certain person behind the
wheel of a certain model of car. By and large, out of a car they're
like homeless hermit crabs, scuttling about, worried for their soft
tissues whilst trying to find another shell to live in. This
psychology was engendered by the lout Moses (the modern one) who gave
us the suburb. That's the second failing of most of these studies: All
the so far mentioned solutions to the automobile are solutions sold to
us by, wait for it, automobile companies. Public transportation,
hybrids, all-electric, hydrogen. All cars. Sold by car companies.
Nothing will change until the very way cities are built changes.
Instead of bulldozing the inner city they should be bulldozing zones
of the suburbs, enough to define outlying communities that might
develop their own economic base. Flint, Michigan is probably the best
petri dish in the country for that right now. (Lest I be accused of
being too harsh on my countrymen there is every evidence that, as they
acquire wealth and economic power, other countries are hell-bent on
following our path). It's the Great Swindle of the 20th century; that
the members of a species should come to define their individuality
through a mass produced object.

On Apr 6, 3:09*am, Phil H wrote:
On Apr 5, 4:24*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





EXACTLY HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING?
by Andre Jute
with thanks to
Frank Krygowski
for supplying the source material
--http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf--
and to
Jay Beattie
whose analysis drew my attention to these shocking numbers

1. Every activity is dangerous, even breathing. How do you know the
air is not polluted and corroding your lungs?

2. It is relative, comparative danger that matters. You do know that
the air you breathe is somewhat polluted. You breathe it all the same,
without making any effort to filter it because you know all the other
dangers in your environment, even in your food, will kill you before
mildly polluted air does. Even the inevitability of ageing is a hazard
that will kill you; in time your biological mechanism will just wear
out.

3. A certain level of danger must, by definition, therefore be
accepted. Low level pollution, fats in food, and suchlike are everyday
examples. Using electricity, travelling in a car or by bicycle,
walking on the streets are all activities which can kill you but that
nonetheless we indulge in order to enjoy their benefits.

4. We need to compare like with like. For technical reasons we are not
permitted statistically to average out various groups of dangers but
we can note whether they're all in the same ballpark. Thus in
transport we can easily compare person-journeys or distance travelled
by various means per fatality. Various methods of locomotion for which
data is easily available is by automobile, by bicycle, and on foot.
Motorcycle statistics are too depressing to give here.

5. Per journey, a pedestrian is 3.2 times as likely to be killed as an
automobile traveller, and a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely to be
killed as an automobile traveller. MEASURED PER JOURNEY, CYCLING IS
2.9 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING IN A CAR.

6. For every mile or km travelled: A pedestrian is 36 times more
likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. A cyclist is 11
times more likely to be killed than an automobile traveller. MEASURED
BY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, CYCLING IS 11 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN RIDING
IN A CAR.

7. There is every need to improve the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists, in exactly the same way as we need to reduce the numbers of
fatalities among automobile travellers, but there is no need to panic
or to stop cycling.

8. Eh? Am I not contradicting myself? No, the statistics per journey
in point 5 above, for instance, are calculated from records per 100
million trips taken in 1995, when per 100 million trips 9 motorists,
29 pedestrians and 26 cyclists died. CYCLING AND WALKING IS SAFER THAN
PARACHUTING, SWIMMING, SEXUAL PROMISCUITY, OBESITY, LUMBERJACKING,
ETC. That doesn't stop us making those activities safer, and it
shouldn't stop us making cycling and walking safer by any necessary
means.

9. In any event, cycling and walking have benefits worth some level of
risk which the individual and society must determine. THE DANGERS MUST
BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE GAINS IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND TO SOCIETY.

***

Note that I'm not making a case for or against helmets. I wear a
helmet all the time -- on the ground that if it saves abrasions on my
face, it has served its purpose -- but I don't feel any need to compel
anyone else to wear a helmet.

***

6 April 2009. This article is not copyright. It may be freely
reproduced in any media. It would be a courtesy to reproduce all of
it, including this notice.

An interesting and thought provoking topic Andre.

However, those comparisons may be skewed to show bicycling as being
more dangerous. How about a statistic which evaluates the relative
risk based on TIME (one hour in a car versus one hour on a bicycle).
This is a more realistic statistic and is probably more favorable to
showing that cycling is not as dangerous as the other measures
indicate.

In statiscs there are liars, outliers and out and out liars

I was under the impression that cycling was safer than driving a car.
In the US, 37 000 people are killed on the roads in vehicular
accidents every year. Cycling deaths are about 700 per year. Problem
with any cycling statistic is that the cycling mileage estimates vary
between 6 and 20 billion and in some cases even higher (100 billion).

Is it fair to compare distance when a car takes approx 1/3 of the time
to travel each mile? How many cyclists match the "average" distance of
12 000 miles per year on their bicycle? A lot of us who post here are
probably in the 10 000 per year range but this would be considered
well above average.

My 2 cents

Phil H

I understand your observations only too well. As you say, 37,000
motorists dead in the US, against only 700 cyclists (or whatever other
huge discrepancy from some other year). It looks at a glance like
cycling is "safe" -- until you realize that motorists and cyclists do
not number within magnitudes of each other, nor are their mileages
even remotely comparable, a few outliers notwithstanding. Then you
have to choose some method of normalizing the numbers, and measures of
use (in the present case distance, trips, and now hours) are time-
honoured and empirically respectable.

A quick and dirty way of normalizing these numbers to account for your
"relative danger per hour" measure (screams of outrage from the more
technically oriented statisticians -- you're not supposed to do this)
is to divide the 11 times by which cycling is more dangerous per mile
than automobiling by the speed differential between bikes and cars,
say three or four. This would then result in a syncretic measure of
"per hour on the road, cycling is about three to four times more
dangerous than automobiling".

Cycling being 3 or 4 times as dangerous as automobiling per hour on
the road is a syncretic measure spot on top of a natural measure we
determined earlier by more statistically respectable means, cycling
being 2.9 times as dangerous per trip as automobiling.

Just a note in case you aren't a statistician: it is a mistake to
obsess too much about the decimals or oven whole numbers -- we're not
looking for precision but for a trend, and what we're discovering is a
trend where cycling on several mutually reinforcing measures is three
to four times as dangerous as automobiling. It doesn't matter whether
the multiple is two or three or five or seven: there will always be
too many uncertainties to satisfy everyone, so what we look for is
multiple indicators marching in the same directions, and the closer
they approach each other, the nearer we come to a definitive answer.
But multiples of 2.9 and 11, while okay for a first approach, are a
tad too far apart for long-term comfort. You might say that your
"danger per hour" measure reconciles our previous multiples of 2.9 and
11.

With your help, we're well past the point of the result being good
enough for government work. It doesn't matter how you handle these
figures from now on in, what they show is that their government has
failed cyclists and pedestrians, and has favoured motorists over
pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that the implication of the finding
is such a well-known commonplace is another indicator that our numbers
are in the ballpark.

Andre Jute
The only diet that works is exercise

On Apr 5, 10:09*pm, Phil H wrote:

I was under the impression that cycling was safer than driving a car.
In the US, 37 000 people are killed on the roads in vehicular
accidents every year. Cycling deaths are about 700 per year. Problem
with any cycling statistic is that the cycling mileage estimates vary
between 6 and 20 billion and in some cases even higher (100 billion).

We've seen estimates posted by unprejudiced experts, claiming that
cycling is roughly half as dangerous as motoring, per hour, in the US.

From http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/ comes this cited data:

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/comparat.html
That is, in fatalities per million hours, swimming comes in at 1.07,
motoring at 0.47 and cycling at 0.26

The original source (Failure Analysis Associates, now known as
Exponent Inc.) is the largest risk consultation firm in the US.

Here's another site - not necessarily expert, I suppose - that deals
with this issue:
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html


Is it fair to compare distance when a car takes approx 1/3 of the time
to travel each mile?

Perhaps more importantly, much of car travel is on limited access
roads that have much lower per-mile crash rates. I once saw data
indicating that biking's average fatality rate, per mile, was about
equal to that for motorists on rural roads. IOW, riding a bike is as
safe as a drive in the country. Sounds not too scary to me.

And yes, there are health benefits to cycling that far outweigh its
tiny risks. Mayer Hillman computed a 20:1 benefit to risk ratio. You
can't say that about motoring.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski