Relative risk

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 6, 6:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


"The UCL team suggests that Government calculations of risk for
cycling would be more accurate if cycling were only compared to the
data for driving on general purpose roads - stripping out motorways...
"

"Another suggestion is that when it comes to risk, cyclists should be
compared to low mileage drivers whose risk factor is between 15 and
100 per cent higher than the average... "

"According to their research, those most at risk when travelling are
men aged between 17 and 20 for driving... " (Well, that explains "...
their most eye-catching findings is that cycling is a safer than
driving for young men between 17-20 years old.")

(These just upon a quick, partial persusal.)

That's all fine, though - looks like thoughtful, reasonable analysis.
(Surprise: Information derived from data can suck!) I for one have
never thought bicycling was inherently especially dangerous.

On Dec 6, 6:42 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 6, 6:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?

"The UCL team suggests that Government calculations of risk for
cycling would be more accurate if cycling were only compared to the
data for driving on general purpose roads - stripping out motorways...
"

"Another suggestion is that when it comes to risk, cyclists should be
compared to low mileage drivers whose risk factor is between 15 and
100 per cent higher than the average... "

"According to their research, those most at risk when travelling are
men aged between 17 and 20 for driving... " (Well, that explains "...
their most eye-catching findings is that cycling is a safer than
driving for young men between 17-20 years old.")

(These just upon a quick, partial persusal.)

That's all fine, though - looks like thoughtful, reasonable analysis.
(Surprise: Information derived from data can suck!)

It does, however, seem to be leaning toward "we should be comparing
bicycling to something more dangerous; then the *same risk* doesn't
look so dangerous by comparison."

I for one have
never thought bicycling was inherently especially dangerous.

On 07/12/12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


If you want to base your life decisions on someone else's data, fine.
Why would we care if you rode 180,000 km and had a 1:150 chance of fatal
injury or 1:15 or 1:1500.

Learning proper road riding technique is about not dying at all.

And above average cycle control, traffic observance, escape route
planning, Matrix Ninja crash avoidance skills and sporting prowess has
everything to do with not dying unnecessarily.

--
JS.

On 07/12/12 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:

http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male

The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.
How about that?


Funny that on that web page there is a link to "Cycling at night? View
our tips on an accident free journey."

http://www.cycleassist.co.uk/5-must-...time%2Bcycling

Which starts with;

"Cycling is becoming more and more dangerous and night time conditions
make riding even more difficult than usual."

Wow, Danger! Danger!

I wish they'd get their message clear.

--
JS.

seems there's a continuing problem stating potential risk visavee probable risk.

The attitudes posted herein are not perspectives of the stats riders nor of the people trying to ameliorate conditions for low cost pollution free transport.

On Dec 6, 11:55*pm, datakoll wrote:
seems there's a continuing problem stating potential risk visavee probable risk.

I think that's a good way of putting it. Unfortunately, ISTM the
problem is confined to two very safe forms of transportation:
bicycling and airlines. Motoring and walking certainly don't get the
same scare treatment.

- Frank Krygowski

what ura gonna blame deeetroit for human inattention to what's happening what like Morsi The Great Statesman On His Way To China ? or Love Canal or or or or...throwing ur children in jailwith criminals for having cannabis in nhe auto or killing them toelect Nixon of The Secret Plan...

white knuckles....**** at least pay attention the other nuts CLOSE ATTENTION as if you see head and shoulders at the wheel of a parked car YOU ARE IN DOOR ZONE COUNTRY.

familiar with the accident site of the actor of Giant ? whathisname ? I always assumed there was limited sught lines but Holy Cow itsa bare desert floor intersection. Bare !

nice station wagon worth a fortuna today.

we have a ghroup site here up the road on Summerlin before Bass: ip,them road from myu sign: a grade school outlet onto a 3/6 lane Blvd with jug handle from the other side. No light. Drunks ? we gottem. Stoned. Diabli !
No light ? nada would slow down tourist traffic as it comes down the road thru the trap lights.

On Dec 7, 3:31*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 7 Dec 2012
07:38:13 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 6, 11:55*pm, datakoll wrote:
seems there's a continuing problem stating potential risk visavee probable risk.

I think that's a good way of putting it. *Unfortunately, ISTM the
problem is confined to two very safe forms of transportation:
bicycling and airlines. *Motoring and walking certainly don't get the
same scare treatment.

I've more often seen it described as "perceived" versus "actual" risk.

Yes, and I think the constant scare treatments are a major part of
what generates the perceived risk.

One of the problems with motoring is that the perceived risk is
deliberately reduced by the manufacturers as buyers like cars that
"feel" safe. *The trouble is that drivers end up feeling safer than
they actually are, and take the level of care associated with the risk
level they feel. *So they don't perceive any risk in chatting on
phones, driving after (or even during) drinking alcohol, eating and
drinking at the wheel, updating their facebook account, doing
crosswords, reading books/ebooks, and so on.

I agree. Not to mention the car ads that show drivers racing at high
speed through twisting mountain roads or empty city streets, sliding
sideways generating billows of dust on dry lake beds, skidding
sideways into parking places within indoor parking decks, etc. I
don't know if you have those sorts of ads in Britain. Here, they're
accompanied by a brief, fine print statement on the bottom of the TV
screen stating something like "Closed course, professional driver, do
not attempt."

What is the point of such ads? I guess it's "You too can drive like a
maniac in perfect safety in this car."

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 8, 9:21 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:31 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 7 Dec 2012
07:38:13 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 6, 11:55 pm, datakoll wrote:
seems there's a continuing problem stating potential risk visavee probable risk.

I think that's a good way of putting it. Unfortunately, ISTM the
problem is confined to two very safe forms of transportation:
bicycling and airlines. Motoring and walking certainly don't get the
same scare treatment.

I've more often seen it described as "perceived" versus "actual" risk.

Yes, and I think the constant scare treatments are a major part of
what generates the perceived risk.

One of the problems with motoring is that the perceived risk is
deliberately reduced by the manufacturers as buyers like cars that
"feel" safe. The trouble is that drivers end up feeling safer than
they actually are, and take the level of care associated with the risk
level they feel. So they don't perceive any risk in chatting on
phones, driving after (or even during) drinking alcohol, eating and
drinking at the wheel, updating their facebook account, doing
crosswords, reading books/ebooks, and so on.

I agree. Not to mention the car ads that show drivers racing at high
speed through twisting mountain roads or empty city streets, sliding
sideways generating billows of dust on dry lake beds, skidding
sideways into parking places within indoor parking decks, etc. I
don't know if you have those sorts of ads in Britain. Here, they're
accompanied by a brief, fine print statement on the bottom of the TV
screen stating something like "Closed course, professional driver, do
not attempt."

What is the point of such ads?

They're directed at people who get the appeal fo breaking traction as
a form of expression. That's why you dont' get it.

Doesn't make it right to get behind the wheel and play "Death Race
2000".

Independent critical thinking is the antidote to commecial interests
advertising influence.

snip