Danger Danger!

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:49:27 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:46:17 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So as the OP kindly labeled the thread, it's more "Danger! Danger!" cries regarding only cycling, while worse claims could be made for pedestrians.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...must-get-angry

In other words, change the way that statistics are used so that your point of view is proven?

[snip]

Now I don't care about Boris one way or the other. But I _know_ that pedestrians die there much more frequently than bicyclists.

This again disingenuous and other than on an absolute basis not a realist portrayal of London death rates. You should see the pavements of central London particularly at rush hours they are crammed to overflowing with pedestrians. One can hardly say that for the roads so any rate measure will reverse your conclusions. As I said in my last post, I will, when I get the time, try and find those rate measures for London.

Yet nobody overreacts to a random cluster of pedestrian deaths. Nobody calls for anyone's head because they've allowed people to walk. And nobody ever says "Walking is so dangerous, you'd be a fool to walk in this city."

On the contary. The death rate in London is a live issue in respect of pedestrians as well as cyclists. Here are further extracts from the CTC article where you will note the concern is equally as great for pedestrians:

CTC, the national cycling charity, is urging its members and supporters to write to the Mayor of London, demanding that he takes urgent action to stop lorries killing cyclists and pedestrians in the capital.
Please call on the Mayor to prioritise the following actions:

(a) Re-designing and re-building major roads and junctions to high standards of cycle-friendliness, rather than sacrificing pedestrians' and cyclists' safety in order to maximise motor traffic flows;

(b) Insisting that lorries used in London should meet high cycle-friendly and pedestrian-friendly design standards;

(c) Keeping lorries off the busiest roads at the busiest times.

As one might expect from a campaigning organisation the language is somewhat emotive.

Graham.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:56:48 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 8:38:17 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
So, if... than there was ...
about a .00267% death rate among walkers due to accidents.



Cyclists is much harder to quantify. [So if..]
2009 630 cyclists died in crashes so of an estimated 29,800,000
cyclists , one in 47,301 cyclists were killed in accidents, or some
.002114%

And without necessarily endorsing your figures, I can point out that they, like most of the risk estimates trotted out by various people, really are comparing infinitesmals. Comparison of infinitesmals is routinely used by the "Danger! Danger!" crowd in the following way:

If a fear monger wanted to use your numbers to claim that (say) pedestrians should always wear helmets, or that people should walk only on elevated walkways away from cars, they would be likely to say "John B's figures prove that walking is over 25% more dangerous than bicycling!!!" That would come from noting that your 0.00267% is over 1.26 times your 0.002114%.

Again, this is routinely done in medical fields as well. "Women who use lipstick are twice as likely to get cancer of the lip!!!" might be a (hypothetical) example, with a one-in-ten-million chance for those using lipstick, vs. a one-in-20-million chance for those whose lips never touch the stuff.

Years ago I remember a couple that we knew. We were at their house or
they were at ours, anyway, the wife was starting to bulge a bit in the
front and I said something like, "Maybe you ought to get a TV to watch
at night" and my wife said to the other woman something like, "Pills?"
and the woman came right off her seat and started a tirade about how
birth control pills can kill you, they are dangerous, unsafe, and on
and on.

After they left my wife, who was taking "pills" said to me in a kind
of small voice, "do you thing they are really dangerous?" Well, since
she is the only wife I have and I didn't really want to replace her I
went over the Base Hospital the next day and asked to see a
Pediatrician, "on a personal matter". After sitting ion the waiting
room for a while, with all the pregnant women looking at me and I can
hear them thinking, "what's HE doing here", I got in to see the doctor
and told him my story. And he confirmed it. Yes there had been women
who had died from taking birth control pills.... but a higher number
died giving birth.

Back to bicycling, John Pucher of Rutgers has built his entire publishing career on comparison of infinitesmals regarding bicycling. He endlessly proclaims that bicycling in the U.S. is many times more dangerous than bicycling in Germany, or Denmark, or the Netherlands, or wherever. But based on U.S. data, an American cyclist could expect to ride for something like 5000 years before reaching a 50/50 chance of dying by bike crash. If a German cyclist could expect to ride 15,000 years instead, should the American really worry? Both likelihoods are infinitesmal.

And in both places, the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh the infinitesmal risks.

- Frank Krygowski

The problem is getting accurate data, I believe. I went looking for
some sort of definitive information on how many active cyclists there
in the U.S. and the only data I found was something by the Wheelmen or
some other bike group that gave a number for all those who had ridden
a bike at least during the past year. And, they were using this number
to try and convince people that there were all these cyclists out
there and we gotta do something for them.

I really think Mark was right.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:32:45 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-22-2013, 20:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again, this is routinely done in medical fields as well. "Women who use lipstick are twice as likely to get cancer of the lip!!!" might be a (hypothetical) example, with a one-in-ten-million chance for those using lipstick, vs. a one-in-20-million chance for those whose lips never touch the stuff.

Or flu vaccinations:
One percent of vaccinated people get it anyway;
two to four percent of unvaccinated people.

Sheesh. I remember one year the A.F. gave flu shots to everyone on the
base and something like 50% of them came down with the flu.
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Graham" wrote in message ...

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:49:27 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2013 1:46:17 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So as the OP kindly labeled the thread, it's more "Danger! Danger!" cries regarding only cycling, while worse claims could be made for pedestrians.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...must-get-angry

In other words, change the way that statistics are used so that your point of view is proven?

[snip]

Now I don't care about Boris one way or the other. But I _know_ that pedestrians die there much more frequently than bicyclists.

This again disingenuous and other than on an absolute basis not a realist portrayal of London death rates. You should see the pavements of central London particularly at rush hours they are crammed to overflowing with pedestrians. One can hardly say that for the roads so any rate measure will reverse your conclusions. As I said in my last post, I will, when I get the time, try and find those rate measures for London.

It did not take as long as I expected. Please review this document:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...n-report-5.pdf

You can calculate all the relative rate data you need from tables 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 5.1. This will give you Fatal, KSI, Slight and All in absolute, by trip, by time and by distance. Your contention stands on both absolute and by distance for fatalities but not for the other two metrics but falls for all rate metrics for the KSI, Slight and All categories. A point to note is that this is main mode data. Many travellers in London make multi mode journies and the main mode is taken to be the one of longest distance. This underestimates the walking rates for our purposes as it does not include people making the final leg of their journey on foot having travelled into town by a mechanised mode. Whereas this is unlikely to be the case for a cyclist who is more likely to go door to door on the bike.

So you pays your money and takes your choice as to which risk measure you wish to make your cycle or walk decision on assuming that RELATIVE risk is the only factor to consider. My guess is that you would choose to walk on the assumption that most people would say "what's the chance of me getting killed or injured if I take this trip by bike or walk" and that would appear to come out firmly in favour of walking.

Graham.

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 1:32:45 AM UTC-5, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 11-22-2013, 20:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Again, this is routinely done in medical fields as well. "Women who use lipstick are twice as likely to get cancer of the lip!!!" might be a (hypothetical) example, with a one-in-ten-million chance for those using lipstick, vs. a one-in-20-million chance for those whose lips never touch the stuff.

Or flu vaccinations:
One percent of vaccinated people get it anyway;
two to four percent of unvaccinated people.

I got the vaccine against shingles. The person wielding the needle said "Now you must realize, this is effective only half the time."

I said "OK. So can you give it to me twice?"

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:56:48 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, November 22, 2013 8:38:17 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

So, if... than there was ...

about a .00267% death rate among walkers due to accidents.







Cyclists is much harder to quantify. [So if..]

2009 630 cyclists died in crashes so of an estimated 29,800,000

cyclists , one in 47,301 cyclists were killed in accidents, or some

.002114%



And without necessarily endorsing your figures, I can point out that they, like most of the risk estimates trotted out by various people, really are comparing infinitesmals. Comparison of infinitesmals is routinely used by the "Danger! Danger!" crowd in the following way:



If a fear monger wanted to use your numbers to claim that (say) pedestrians should always wear helmets, or that people should walk only on elevated walkways away from cars, they would be likely to say "John B's figures prove that walking is over 25% more dangerous than bicycling!!!" That would come from noting that your 0.00267% is over 1.26 times your 0.002114%.



Again, this is routinely done in medical fields as well. "Women who use lipstick are twice as likely to get cancer of the lip!!!" might be a (hypothetical) example, with a one-in-ten-million chance for those using lipstick, vs. a one-in-20-million chance for those whose lips never touch the stuff..



Back to bicycling, John Pucher of Rutgers has built his entire publishing career on comparison of infinitesmals regarding bicycling. He endlessly proclaims that bicycling in the U.S. is many times more dangerous than bicycling in Germany, or Denmark, or the Netherlands, or wherever. But based on U.S. data, an American cyclist could expect to ride for something like 5000 years before reaching a 50/50 chance of dying by bike crash. If a German cyclist could expect to ride 15,000 years instead, should the American really worry? Both likelihoods are infinitesmal.



And in both places, the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh the infinitesmal risks.

The bottom line is that statistics say very little about the risk encountered by a particular cyclist. Some places are more dangerous to ride. Riding 5-7 days a week in all weather and traffic conditions exposes a person to more risk than riding the beach cruiser around the resort twice a year. Good studies look at a cohort of regular bicycle riders in a relevant area, e.g. http://www.scribd.com/doc/42230497/O...e-Trauma-Study

Can't get any better than looking at the people who ride on the same streets as I do.

And apart from the risk issue, it sucks riding in high traffic areas where conflicts with motor vehicles are common (if not injury producing). I can understand not wanting to do that. We're stuck at 2% bicycle modal share in greater PDX (it's much higher close-in). We're stuck at that number because of weather, terrain, travel distance and the fact that in some areas, it just sucks to ride. If we had the (H)Amsterdam habitrail for bicyclists, I bet more people would ride. After spending about $10 billion, we might get up to 4% bicycle modal share city-wide.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 7:02:08 AM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
"Graham" wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote:

Now I don't care about Boris one way or the other. But I _know_ that pedestrians die there much more frequently than bicyclists.

This again disingenuous and other than on an absolute basis not a realist portrayal of London death rates.

Understand, my interest in this topic (bicycle deaths in London) initiated with press coverage. I happened on some, began watching for more and have now read many, many articles about bike deaths in London.

Almost every article has had either direct quotations or a marked tone claiming that bicycling in London is horribly dangerous. Most have called for completely segregated facilities. Many have placed blame directly on Boris Johnson, for making bicycles available and for painting bike lanes. And every article justified its "Bicycling is dangerous!" tone NOT on the basis of "per mile" or "per trip" data; instead, simply on "another death" or "three this week" etc. If you want to blame someone for not focusing on proper rates, perhaps you should blame your journalists!

My natural reaction to "Another cyclist has died!!!" was to wonder "Have any non-cyclists died in the meantime?" The answer was "Yes, of course; many non-cyclists have died. But we're making only bicycling sound dangerous."

The only article that seemed to mention rates pointed out that cycling has fewer deaths per mile traveled than walking. Oh, and there were a few that pointed out, in a parenthetical way, that the cycling death count has been dropping (at least, until this last cluster) despite huge increases in bike use.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...n-report-5.pdf

That's a useful source. Thanks.

So you pays your money and takes your choice as to which risk measure you wish to make your cycle or walk decision on assuming that RELATIVE risk is the only factor to consider.

Obviously, relative risk is never the only factor to consider. If it were, everyone would always be going to work by mass transit!

But thinking about that question - i.e. what do people consider when deciding on a mode of travel? - I think risk is usually far down the list of factors affecting transport choice. The following are top-of-my-head guesses, just for discussion, but:

First is probably practical availability: One can't drive a car unless one owns a car; one can't take the bus unless the bus happens to have a route one can use.

Second may be time: IIRC, surveys have consistently shown that people don't like spending more than half an hour getting to work. They prefer spending far less time getting to shops, doctor's offices, etc. In our area, at least, this greatly diminishes the use of the bus lines. (I could travel the seven miles to work far faster by bike than by bus.)

Other factors? Expense is certainly one. If parking costs $20 per day, it's great incentive to leave the car at home. If getting a driver's license requires over $1500 in driver's education (as in some European countries) one is more likely to do without a car.

Weather protection is valuable in most climates. That dissuades many people from walking, from using motorcycles or scooters, and of course from bicycling.

Lack of exertion is, unfortunately, very important to most people. I came across one colleague who jogged to work. Almost nobody will do that. Even walking more than a mile is pretty rare. (Many Americans claim they can't possibly bike to work, because there's no way to take a shower once they arrive!)

While I may have missed some, I honestly think that those are the main factors affecting choice of transport, assuming a city environment where all choices exist. EXCEPT for bicycling and perhaps motorcycling! I believe that those are the only modes that get rejected out of hand because they are perceived as "far too dangerous."

Furthermore, I think an individual's "too dangerous" emotion is (unconsciously) processed as "I've got a real likelihood of getting killed if I make that travel choice." Where does that come from? Not from (U.S.) data by John Pucher, showing one bike death for every 3.85 million trips, since that must rationally register as negligible risk.

I think the "Bicycling is too dangerous!" mindset comes from headlines and articles that say "Bicycling is too dangerous!" And again, the authors and interviewees never seem to put anything in terms of per-trip, per-mile, per-hour, etc. Instead, it's always simply "Another bicyclist has died!"

The unspoken subtext is always "Please ignore that pile of motorist and pedestrian bodies over there..."

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 8:38:17 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
So, if... than there was ...
about a .00267% death rate among walkers due to accidents.



Cyclists is much harder to quantify. [So if..]
2009 630 cyclists died in crashes so of an estimated 29,800,000
cyclists , one in 47,301 cyclists were killed in accidents, or some
.002114%

And without necessarily endorsing your figures, I can point out that they, like most of the risk estimates trotted out by various people, really are comparing infinitesmals. Comparison of infinitesmals is routinely used by the "Danger! Danger!" crowd...


What constitutes being in this "crowd", or out of it?

... in the following way: If a fear monger...

Is that it? (I've no need to look up the dictionary definition
of "fear", but may want to re-check what a "monger" is. That's
like a purveyor or someting, right?)

Fear is an interesting thing. A feeling can never be wrong.
I don't think you can really *create* fear of something other
than yourself - and even then only if you are perceived as a
threat. Okay, I suppose you could convince people of a threat
that doesn't exist _but that they already have the capacity to
imagine without your suggestion_, but I think it's going *way*
overboard to say this is what's going on whenever people express
a sense of danger in bicycling with cars and trucks on the roads.

... wanted to use your numbers to claim that (say) pedestrians should always wear helmets, or that people should walk only on elevated walkways away from cars, they would be likely to say "John B's figures prove that walking is over 25% more dangerous than bicycling!!!" That would come from noting that your 0.00267% is over 1.26 times your 0.002114%.


Do you see why we trust our gut and are skeptical of statistics.

Understand I'm not skeptical of the data itself - not in the
least. I use "data" every time I make any decision. I just need
to determine for myself what the data represents, and what it
says in the context. And the context is never, ever complete in
the statistical model. Never; not even close. It's a little
(infinitesimally little) subset of the total context that is
"reality".

Again, this is routinely done in medical fields as well. "Women who use lipstick are twice as likely to get cancer of the lip!!!" might be a (hypothetical) example, with a one-in-ten-million chance for those using lipstick, vs. a one-in-20-million chance for those whose lips never touch the stuff.


Says something, though, doesn't it - if the sample is representative
and significant.

Back to bicycling, John Pucher of Rutgers has built his entire publishing career on comparison of infinitesmals regarding bicycling. He endlessly proclaims that bicycling in the U.S. is many times more dangerous than bicycling in Germany, or Denmark, or the Netherlands, or wherever. But based on U.S. data, an American cyclist could expect to ride for something like 5000 years before reaching a 50/50 chance of dying by bike crash. If a German cyclist could expect to ride 15,000 years instead, should the American really worry? Both likelihoods are infinitesmal.


Okay, let me shift from "infinitesmal" to "intangible". May seem
like separate concepts, but bear with me. In your notion of "the
way things really are" based on statistical models, infinitesmal
implies that, while it may represent a valid truth, it doesn't
matter practically. Intangibles are converse, they are difficult
(impossible?) to represent in your statistical model, but can
bear *tremendously* - decisively - on practical matters. And there
are infinite intangibles.

Just because the statistics show that statistically speaking I
can ride all my life without being killed by it here or there
*doesn't* mean all that riding won't be infinitely better there.

And in both places, the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh the infinitesmal risks.


Bact to "fear", and "mongers", and the "Danger! Danger! 'crowd'":
People know there are swarms of cars and trucks on the road. They
know that those vehicles are piloted by random people - people
with variable emotions and cognition and experiences and relational
styles. Anyone can see that control and order - the way things
are supposed to go - are only very, very tenuously maintained, and
in fact almost *always* don't go *exactly* the way they "should"
(everyone knows this innately). People know the way things go out
there with lots of contempt and hostility thoughout all this
controlling of lethal inertia. It's scary to think about. Nobody
is putting this into their heads.

You and I and anyone who really thinks about it knows that this
tenuous control and order on how things are supposed to go *does*,
in practice, ususally stay within parameters that make it quite
adequately safe for a bicyclist - especially one who is competent
and paying attention. Far, far and away safe enough to be so very
well worth the benefits.

But I wandered a bit at the end there. You and I know that last
one, but not anyone else who thinks about it. Only those who
ride really *know* that last part.

Anyway, my point is that you can't just stifle the sense of fear
by chastising and berating anyone who aknowledges the feeling.
(And that's very offensive, BTW, in case you didn't know.)

It *is* okay to say, "Cycling is too dangerous!" It's purely
opinion. Go ahead and show them otherwise. That's great. But
don't think that stifling expression changes the facts. Heck,
you don't want them *pretending* to not be afraid, do you?

Your education like that which helped the poor lady who was not
afraid of her "intact male" pets but was deathly afraid to ride
on a lovely tree-lined street until she received the knowledge
that facilitated the courage to get out there and ride and _then
she saw_ - that's great. But you've got _no plan_ that's going
to reach the masses.

Bike lanes and more are right there for everybody all the time.
Yes, they have their problems, but they're not inherently evil;
they're not even inherently dangerous to anyone who can see what's
safe and what's not (IOW, those whom evolution will favor with
renewal at Carousel). I ride toward anything - an intersection,
a driveway, a bike facility, a mud puddle - doesn't matter what it
is; I make an independent safety assessment and _don't ride there_
if I don't like the risk (that I seem to enjoy high risk is beside
the point :-)

Boy, this is getting long. But anyway, the facilities are the
"seed" (not very literally like a seed - more like a well
tilled and furrowed soil for the seed to go in, but... ) With
the seed planted, then the masses will come to you for the
education (still not me, but you'll always have that contingent).

Oh, and Frank - that business about it's okay to say, "Cycling
is too dangerous!", if qualified with, "... er, but it's much
safer than walking." Do you know how stupid that sounds to anyone
*under* the age of 60?

Jay Beattie writes:

On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:56:48 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

the "Danger! Danger!" crowd...

snip

... fear monger wanted to use your numbers to claim that (say) pedestrians should always wear helmets,

snip

and a bunch of stuff about statistical models

... should the American really worry?

snip


The bottom line is that statistics say very little about the risk encountered by a particular cyclist. Some places are more dangerous to ride. Riding 5-7 days a week in all weather and traffic conditions exposes a person to more risk than riding the beach cruiser around the resort twice a year.


snip

And apart from the risk issue, it sucks riding in high traffic areas where conflicts with motor vehicles are common (if not injury producing).


I'm jumping threads here to say something about the bike boxes.

My little "hassle" with cars right hooking across my right-of-way
on the fresh green is *not* a problem I'm asking for bike boxes -
or anything else - to solve. I *only* even mentioned it because
Frank was saying "many, many uncritical" people would flock to
the facilities because they were "special" - even though they
offered no tangible benefit and in fact made things worse; and
it occurred to me that bicycle commuters in a busy grid might
find this a tangible benefit that made their commute less of a
hassle. *Not* a reason to install bike boxes, but a fringe
benefit.

But (and I'll wrap this up), aside from the fact that a bike box
would almost certainly have been the game changer for e.g. Tracey
Sparling and whoever would have been next, the green bike boxes are
* billboards* all over the city. They say bikes are legitimate road
vehicles. The educate motorists that their 100 years of car culture
conditioning is out of date, and that bicyclists should be expected
on their right. Perhaps above all, the bike boxes with their forward
position say that bicyclists have *precedence* (which they deserve
because they are more vulnerable and less taxing on society) - the
Dutch message! Education.

snip

Dan writes:


snip


But (and I'll wrap this up), aside from the fact that a bike box
would almost certainly have been the game changer for e.g. Tracey
Sparling and whoever would have been next, the green bike boxes are
* billboards* all over the city. They say bikes are legitimate road
vehicles. The educate motorists that their 100 years of car culture
conditioning is out of date, and that bicyclists should be expected
on their right. Perhaps above all, the bike boxes with their forward
position say that bicyclists have *precedence* (which they deserve
because they are more vulnerable and less taxing on society) - the
Dutch message! Education.


Bike lanes on the right are *not* there to tell bicyclists it's
okay to pass cars on the right with impunity. *Not*. They don't
tell them this. It's still and always on the bicyclist to
determine whether 'tis safe to pass a car on the right; and it's
*not* safe to do this without being sure the car will not turn
into you. And any bicyclist that belongs on the (American) road
should *know* that car drivers are apt to do this. It's assinine,
and inconsiderate, but that's how they are; they'll do it.

Bike lanes, and green paint, and all that, are there to tell
*motorists* that it's *not* okay to cut across that path without
checking for (bike) traffic with the legal right-of-way. That
so many motorists do not want to accept sharing the road with
this other mode does not make the bike lane itself a hazard to
anyone. Blithe use of the bike lane is hazardous. Blithe
*anything* can be hazardous. A moving or even potentially
moving car is a considerable hazard.

That this other mode (bikes) is far, far more vulnerable leads
some motorists to extend their contempt beyond mere deliberate
ignorance of the bicyclist's rightful place ont he road - extend
it to outright hostile threat of harm up to and including death.

The Dutch got it right. Don't give up. Keep hope alive.