|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Relative risk
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Relative risk | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | General | 14 | December 21st 12 02:16 AM |
Relative | soup | UK | 2 | May 11th 05 09:50 AM |
Is she Tammy T's Relative? | B. Lafferty | Racing | 24 | August 26th 04 02:59 PM |
It's all relative... | JJuggle | Unicycling | 3 | June 29th 04 09:08 PM |
Difficulty is all relative | Sofa | Unicycling | 4 | April 13th 04 11:20 AM |