Study in to EU cyclist safety.

What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

--
JS

The Euros are slipping on ice...check the longitude, Weatherunderground almanacs...supply of cleat over boot wear.

On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

While I don't have time now to read that report, this is no surprise to
me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem, and table 6.8 shows cyclists were jst 68 out of 463 road user
cases, or 15% of that 22%. That makes cyclists about 3% of the problem.
Plus, table 6.9 makes clear that cyclists' TBI, when it occurs, tends
to be mild (76% of the time), whereas for motorists and pedestrians,
it's mild only half the time (51% and 46% respectively) and
motorcyclists, mild only 23% of the time. Otherwise, TBI are moderate
or severe.

In the U.S., the TBI fatality count for pedestrians is far, far higher
than for cyclists, and contrary to myth, the two groups have roughly the
same percentage of fatalities due to TBI. And John Pucher of Rutgers
has concluded (from studying available data) that the per-km risk of
fatality is over three times as high for pedestrians as for cyclists.

And should anyone suspect bias, Pucher is very much a "Danger! Danger!"
guy. He fantasizes about turning America into Amsterdam. He does NOT,
however, favor mandatory helmets!

Some details on the above are available at
http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf


--
- Frank Krygowski

brain dead


https://www.google.com/#q=pedestrian...oss+the+street

On 5/9/2016 8:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

Not safe to say that at all. The reason pedestrians have a higher
incidence of head injuries than cyclists could be because of the lack of
helmets for pedestrians. Or it could be the number of each type of road
user since the study doesn't appear to correct for the relative numbers
of each or the time each spends on the road. That study is rather
worthless for trying to say whether it's safer to cycle or walk.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:43:57 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem,

- Frank Krygowski

You really are, statistically speaking, an eejit, as we say here in Ireland because we're too polite to call even you, Frank Krygowski, a moron.

Yo, dickhead, listen up. In ireland the cyclists amount to a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. In my environment I know all of them by name, That cyclists make up 22% of Traumatic Brain Injuries is therefore a horribly disproportionate number.

In fact, last year or the year before I was standing with a surgeon at a window in University Hospital in Cork, looking out on a busy 8-lane junction between the hospital gates and a shopping mall, and, knowing that I'm a cyclist, when he saw a cyclist, he quipped, "Here comes an organ donor."

I really wish, Franki-boy, that you would stop putting yourself forward as Ohio's resident expert on Ireland and all things Irish. You're not. You don't know ****. You're Ohio's Polack Ass on every subject under the sun.

Sincerely,

Andre Jute
Lord, save me from the idiotic opinions of jumped-up welders

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:58:38 AM UTC+1, James wrote:

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

--
JS

First thing, huge respect to these researchers for making sense of really disparate data: "The number of bicycles per thousand inhabitants ranges from 52 in the Czech Republic to 1.000 in the Netherlands. What differs though considerably from one country to another is the way in which the bicycle is used. Some cyclists use it every day, as a means of transport, while others do so only occasionally (ECMT, 2000) and additionally, significant differences are noted in the driving behavior and culture of the other road users (cyclists are still often overlooked), as well as in the cycling infrastructure among the countries."

Andre Jute
Statistics is the art of the possible

On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

While I don't have time now to read that report, this is no surprise to
me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem, and table 6.8 shows cyclists were jst 68 out of 463 road user
cases, or 15% of that 22%. That makes cyclists about 3% of the problem.
Plus, table 6.9 makes clear that cyclists' TBI, when it occurs, tends
to be mild (76% of the time), whereas for motorists and pedestrians,
it's mild only half the time (51% and 46% respectively) and
motorcyclists, mild only 23% of the time. Otherwise, TBI are moderate
or severe.

In the U.S., the TBI fatality count for pedestrians is far, far higher
than for cyclists, and contrary to myth, the two groups have roughly the
same percentage of fatalities due to TBI. And John Pucher of Rutgers
has concluded (from studying available data) that the per-km risk of
fatality is over three times as high for pedestrians as for cyclists.

And should anyone suspect bias, Pucher is very much a "Danger! Danger!"
guy. He fantasizes about turning America into Amsterdam. He does NOT,
however, favor mandatory helmets!

Some details on the above are available at
http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

Not to question Pucher's findings, but is a rate per kilometer
traveled an accurate method of comparing an activity where speeds are,
say 30 Km./Hr. versus an activity where travel is, Oh say 5 Km. W/Hr.
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the length of time an activity
is engaged in?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/10/2016 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

While I don't have time now to read that report, this is no surprise to
me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem, and table 6.8 shows cyclists were jst 68 out of 463 road user
cases, or 15% of that 22%. That makes cyclists about 3% of the problem.
Plus, table 6.9 makes clear that cyclists' TBI, when it occurs, tends
to be mild (76% of the time), whereas for motorists and pedestrians,
it's mild only half the time (51% and 46% respectively) and
motorcyclists, mild only 23% of the time. Otherwise, TBI are moderate
or severe.

In the U.S., the TBI fatality count for pedestrians is far, far higher
than for cyclists, and contrary to myth, the two groups have roughly the
same percentage of fatalities due to TBI. And John Pucher of Rutgers
has concluded (from studying available data) that the per-km risk of
fatality is over three times as high for pedestrians as for cyclists.

And should anyone suspect bias, Pucher is very much a "Danger! Danger!"
guy. He fantasizes about turning America into Amsterdam. He does NOT,
however, favor mandatory helmets!

Some details on the above are available at
http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

Not to question Pucher's findings, but is a rate per kilometer
traveled an accurate method of comparing an activity where speeds are,
say 30 Km./Hr. versus an activity where travel is, Oh say 5 Km. W/Hr.
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the length of time an activity
is engaged in?

As mentioned before, there are many ways of comparing these things.
Which way is most appropriate may depend on one's objectives - and I'm
talking about legitimate objectives, not (say) the objective of selling
or mandating a questionable retail product.

Briefly, if one is comparing the safety of various means of getting from
one place to another, then "per km" data may be most reasonable -
assuming, of course, that the geography is appropriate. There's no
point in comparing, say, the safety of intercontinental flights with
that of driving to the grocery store; they don't compete. Similarly,
driving vs. cycling comparisons should exclude most freeway miles for
cars. But I think walking and cycling are pretty comparable. (And BTW,
if we adopt the strategy of some "Danger! Danger!" freaks and say only
the very safest method is acceptable, then all car drivers should be
made to switch to buses and trains.)

Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
those activities.

Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.

And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
_far_ outweigh its tiny risks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:21:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2016 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
injury than cyclists in the EU.

I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
discrimination.

http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/...nnis-pc235.pdf

While I don't have time now to read that report, this is no surprise to
me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
contributor to serious TBI.

Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
problem, and table 6.8 shows cyclists were jst 68 out of 463 road user
cases, or 15% of that 22%. That makes cyclists about 3% of the problem.
Plus, table 6.9 makes clear that cyclists' TBI, when it occurs, tends
to be mild (76% of the time), whereas for motorists and pedestrians,
it's mild only half the time (51% and 46% respectively) and
motorcyclists, mild only 23% of the time. Otherwise, TBI are moderate
or severe.

In the U.S., the TBI fatality count for pedestrians is far, far higher
than for cyclists, and contrary to myth, the two groups have roughly the
same percentage of fatalities due to TBI. And John Pucher of Rutgers
has concluded (from studying available data) that the per-km risk of
fatality is over three times as high for pedestrians as for cyclists.

And should anyone suspect bias, Pucher is very much a "Danger! Danger!"
guy. He fantasizes about turning America into Amsterdam. He does NOT,
however, favor mandatory helmets!

Some details on the above are available at
http://ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

Not to question Pucher's findings, but is a rate per kilometer
traveled an accurate method of comparing an activity where speeds are,
say 30 Km./Hr. versus an activity where travel is, Oh say 5 Km. W/Hr.
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the length of time an activity
is engaged in?

As mentioned before, there are many ways of comparing these things.
Which way is most appropriate may depend on one's objectives - and I'm
talking about legitimate objectives, not (say) the objective of selling
or mandating a questionable retail product.

Briefly, if one is comparing the safety of various means of getting from
one place to another, then "per km" data may be most reasonable -
assuming, of course, that the geography is appropriate. There's no
point in comparing, say, the safety of intercontinental flights with
that of driving to the grocery store; they don't compete. Similarly,
driving vs. cycling comparisons should exclude most freeway miles for
cars. But I think walking and cycling are pretty comparable. (And BTW,
if we adopt the strategy of some "Danger! Danger!" freaks and say only
the very safest method is acceptable, then all car drivers should be
made to switch to buses and trains.)

I'm still not sure that comparing an activity that takes place at
approximately 30 KPH with one that takes place at, say 5 KPH is valid.
If you come off the bike at 30 KPHG you hit the ground at a velocity
sufficient to break bones while falling while walking is more akin to
dropping a watermelon.

But regarding danger, danger, I grew up in New England and the house
I lived in was painted with white lead paint as well as the house my
grand parents lived in, and the Methodist Church, and most of the
other wooden buildings in town and lead paint was commonly used as I
know back to the 1700's if not earlier.

Now I'm assured by (primarily) Usians that lead paint is absolute
poison and you shouldn't get near it,

I'm also told that mercury is a poison and if you drop a thermometer
you better run. Yet a Doctor advised me that liquid mercury is not
dangerous to the human body.

And on and on and on. What ever happened to the brave, stalwart
pioneer, braving wild animals and wilder people to settle the country?

Regarding lead :-) While in High School I worked a summer for the
Vermont Forest Service and one of the jobs we did was re-roofing the
barn at the Calvin Coolidge homestead. The old house was in pretty bad
shape but we camped out there and I discovered that the water system
was a pipeline from a spring up the hill a ways and at least in the
summer the Coolidge family had running water. Through a lead pipe.

Can you imagine, Calvin Coolidge grew up drinking water from a lead
pipe and look how he turned out :-)


Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
those activities.

Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.

And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
_far_ outweigh its tiny risks.

Ah, but when an automobile hits something it is described as "an
accident".
--
cheers,

John B.