|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:11:20 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/hea...-1226760958780 I wonder if the purported death spike is similar to the spike in shark deaths that was everywhere in the media about ten years ago? That one turned out to be imaginary. Shark deaths were as low as ever, but the media provided its own sort of feeding frenzy, blowing a few rare attacks into an epidemic. Not that there couldn't be a temporary rise in Oz. But if there is a rise, it could also be random variation. London's bike deaths are currently getting the same treatment media and bike advocates. But when I looked, I found London pedestrian deaths were far greater in number, but with no media coverage. - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On 15/11/13 15:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:11:20 PM UTC-5, James wrote: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/hea...-1226760958780 I wonder if the purported death spike is similar to the spike in shark deaths that was everywhere in the media about ten years ago? That one turned out to be imaginary. Shark deaths were as low as ever, but the media provided its own sort of feeding frenzy, blowing a few rare attacks into an epidemic. Not that there couldn't be a temporary rise in Oz. But if there is a rise, it could also be random variation. London's bike deaths are currently getting the same treatment media and bike advocates. But when I looked, I found London pedestrian deaths were far greater in number, but with no media coverage. You may be correct of course, that it is a random variation. It could also be that the toll has been unusually low over the past few years. I'd expect the fatality to injury ratio to remain pretty constant, wouldn't you agree? In that case, given the chart he (don't know if you can access that overseas?) http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=%21padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=line&x-axis=Date&y-axis=Age+Range+-+Serious+Injuries&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&me ta_d3year=2000&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta _d4year=2011&meta_F_orsand=%22Bicyclist%22&clive=t ac-injuries-xml#.UoXQSrTE2cU.mailto You'll notice that in the age range of 26 to 59 year olds, the trend is that injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased significantly. Overall, injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased from about 210 to 330 in 10 years in Victoria, where as deaths have remained pretty much constant at 8 per year. A 50% increase in injuries *should* translate to a 50% increase in fatalities, I'd expect, so we should be seeing about 12 deaths per year at the moment. (The data isn't kept very up to date.) Here's another interesting article by a fellow who's travelled a bit and, like you, Frank, bicycled in various other countries. http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-to-cycle-rage -- JS |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:51:51 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
You may be correct of course, that it is a random variation. It could also be that the toll has been unusually low over the past few years. I'd expect the fatality to injury ratio to remain pretty constant, wouldn't you agree? In that case, given the chart he (don't know if you can access that overseas?) http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=%21padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=line&x-axis=Date&y-axis=Age+Range+-+Serious+Injuries&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&me ta_d3year=2000&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta _d4year=2011&meta_F_orsand=%22Bicyclist%22&clive=t ac-injuries-xml#.UoXQSrTE2cU.mailto You'll notice that in the age range of 26 to 59 year olds, the trend is that injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased significantly. That is weird. Meanwhile, it looks like the groups most notorious for risk-taking - the 0-17 and 18-25 year olds - have either level or decreasing injuries. Makes me wonder about exposure data, naturally. Here's another interesting article by a fellow who's travelled a bit and, like you, Frank, bicycled in various other countries. http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-to-cycle-rage I've long thought that some intense public education programs - via TV, billboards, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet, etc. - should be the first place to start. And if hostility in Oz is as great as that guy claims, maybe some police "sting" operations would be in order. Of course, that requires first convincing the police... - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On 16/11/13 03:33, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:51:51 AM UTC-5, James wrote: You may be correct of course, that it is a random variation. It could also be that the toll has been unusually low over the past few years. I'd expect the fatality to injury ratio to remain pretty constant, wouldn't you agree? In that case, given the chart he (don't know if you can access that overseas?) http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=%21padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=line&x-axis=Date&y-axis=Age+Range+-+Serious+Injuries&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&me ta_d3year=2000&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta _d4year=2011&meta_F_orsand=%22Bicyclist%22&clive=t ac-injuries-xml#.UoXQSrTE2cU.mailto You'll notice that in the age range of 26 to 59 year olds, the trend is that injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased significantly. That is weird. Meanwhile, it looks like the groups most notorious for risk-taking - the 0-17 and 18-25 year olds - have either level or decreasing injuries. Makes me wonder about exposure data, naturally. My gut feeling is, people now think it's too risky to let your child ride a bicycle, and then as they hit 18, why ride a bicycle when you can drive? Once you've got a job and accommodation, and find you're struggling to make ends meet, or sitting in traffic queues has lost its charm, some look for an alternative. Some accommodation may not even have room for a motorcar. Hence the rather large uptake of cycling in the middle aged ranks. Despite rising fuel prices, once you're old, you probably don't want to risk doing something as energetic as riding a bicycle, and we all know how dangerous it is just walking up the street! Here's another interesting article by a fellow who's travelled a bit and, like you, Frank, bicycled in various other countries. http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-to-cycle-rage I've long thought that some intense public education programs - via TV, billboards, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet, etc. - should be the first place to start. And if hostility in Oz is as great as that guy claims, maybe some police "sting" operations would be in order. Of course, that requires first convincing the police... Yes, well, interesting topics. A recent doco I saw suggested that when a motorist sees a motorist run a red light, the thinking is, he's not one of us, but when a cyclist runs a red light, all cyclists are scofflaws. So the motorists have this notion that cyclists are their own worst enemy, and have themselves to blame for their injuries and deaths, despite much research showing that in possibly up to 87% of "events", the motorist was at fault. (A study published that used helmet cameras to document crashes and near misses found 87% of the "events" were the fault of the car driver. http://theconversation.com/helmet-ca...ing-safer-3540 ) Then of course the roads policies are so heavily swayed by the powerful motoring lobby groups, instead of campaigns to warn drivers to take extra care, we have to "share the road" - which in their mind means don't hold me up at all, ever, or you're not sharing. The police are rendered pretty much useless because the legal system is heavily weighed in the motorists favour. Motorists only have to say "I honestly thought there was enough room." and show remorse, and the small fine and demerit point is no more than a slap on the wrist - while a cyclist is dead. See http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226635894242 Of course the facilities advocates are going nuts over here, crying for segregation to keep us safe. -- JS |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:11:12 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:51:51 AM UTC-5, James wrote: You may be correct of course, that it is a random variation. It could also be that the toll has been unusually low over the past few years. I'd expect the fatality to injury ratio to remain pretty constant, wouldn't you agree? In that case, given the chart he (don't know if you can access that overseas?) http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=%21padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=line&x-axis=Date&y-axis=Age+Range+-+Serious+Injuries&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&me ta_d3year=2000&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta _d4year=2011&meta_F_orsand=%22Bicyclist%22&clive=t ac-injuries-xml#.UoXQSrTE2cU.mailto You'll notice that in the age range of 26 to 59 year olds, the trend is that injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased significantly. That is weird. Meanwhile, it looks like the groups most notorious for risk-taking - the 0-17 and 18-25 year olds - have either level or decreasing injuries. Makes me wonder about exposure data, naturally. Here's another interesting article by a fellow who's travelled a bit and, like you, Frank, bicycled in various other countries. http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-to-cycle-rage I've long thought that some intense public education programs - via TV, billboards, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet, etc. - should be the first place to start. And if hostility in Oz is as great as that guy claims, maybe some police "sting" operations would be in order. Of course, that requires first convincing the police... It's becoming obvious that legislation is needed to get police and court systems to actually take such matters seriously. Make them liable for any incident where they can't prove that they investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and they might just be forced into some kind of action. Failing that, vigilantism by cycle advocacy groups. Drivers should be aware that they are driving around in something which if the right steps are taken will resemble a bomb - and if motorists knew that there was a real chance that if they carve up a cyclist they may find their vehicle a smoking shell the next time return to it after parking somewhere, maybe they'd take safety seriously. Especially if a few of the worst offenders were found still in the vehicle. On the other hand cyclists are blatantly aware that they are engaging in an activity that is dangerous, witness the many comments, written articles and You Tube displays that exist to demonstrate the dangers of bicycle riding. Perhaps the logical answer is to simply ban the practice of bicycle riding as a means of saving the lives of those wantonly killed while engaged in this hazardous exercises. After all, fireworks were banned to protect those who would be injured by the incorrect use of fireworks. Some anxious individuals are in favor of banning firearms arguing that if the guns are banned then the death rate due to their use will be reduced. If banning guns will reduce gun crimes and banning fireworks is the answer to Fourth of July injuries than certainly banning bicycles will be highly effective in banning bicycle injuries deaths. -- Cheers, John B. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On Monday, November 18, 2013 12:32:39 AM UTC, John B. wrote:
If banning guns will reduce gun crimes and banning fireworks is the answer to Fourth of July injuries than certainly banning bicycles will be highly effective in banning bicycle injuries deaths. You have the principle right, John B, but the execution wrong. If cars kill cyclists, it is the cars that should be banned to protect cyclists from being killed. Andre Jute Car-free since 1992 I practice what I preach |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
News from the land Down Under.
On 18/11/13 12:12, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2013 12:32:39 AM UTC, John B. wrote: If banning guns will reduce gun crimes and banning fireworks is the answer to Fourth of July injuries than certainly banning bicycles will be highly effective in banning bicycle injuries deaths. You have the principle right, John B, but the execution wrong. If cars kill cyclists, it is the cars that should be banned to protect cyclists from being killed. Not only that, car drivers kill other car drivers, passengers and pedestrians. -- JS |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good news: not doping. Bad news: 1 year suspension | Robert Chung | Racing | 0 | May 7th 08 12:37 AM |
The Land of the Free | Dan Gregory | Racing | 3 | June 7th 07 06:40 PM |
Where can I go on FC and NT land? | Doki | UK | 2 | December 5th 04 01:46 PM |
tricks you can't land | streetrider | Unicycling | 6 | September 14th 04 03:59 PM |
Land of the free.... | ride your bike | General | 32 | August 17th 03 04:53 AM |