Today's reading: Comparisons of danger

It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou

On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What?! Are you saying that most people don't analyze the relative per
time-unit or per distance unit risk of each activity that they are
contemplating engaging in prior to choosing which activities to select,
based solely on safety? Just the other day I was going to climb a ladder
to clean my gutters, prior to gardening and then taking a nap, but based
on r.b.t. posts I decided that going on a bike ride was the more logical
choice in terms of safety.

Seriously, if people listened to the "Danger Danger" narrative,
constantly being spewed by Frank, they'd construct a plastic bubble to
live in--though even that might not be sufficiently safe.

Some people simply enjoy being pedantic and don't realize how tiresome
and annoying it is to others. Fortunately, in the case of Usenet,
there's a simple solution to pedantic posters.

On 24/05/2019 3:22 a.m., wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 4:24:32 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been pointed out that "safe" vs. "dangerous" is not a binary
choice. There are various levels of risk, and activities can be very
dangerous, very safe, or every shade in between.

One rational way of judging an activity's level of safety is to compare
it with other activities. These comparisons have been done for a long
time, using different methods, and bicycling tends to come out of the
comparisons looking quite good.

Of course, some here strongly disapprove of such comparisons. They say
it somehow doesn't matter that (as data from several countries show)
bicycling's fatality rate per mile is lower than that for walking. Or
that bicycling's fatality rate per hour is far lower than that for
swimming. Or that bicyclists report fewer injuries per month than
gardeners. For those people, anything that shows bicycling is safe must
be mocked.

Well, yet another team of researchers disagrees. See Chieng, et. al.,
"How dangerous is cycling in New Zealand?", Journal of Transport &
Health, Vol. 6 (2017), pp. 23-28.

"We compared the risks of tpical exposures to road cycling for transport
with other common activities including do-it-yourself repairs (DIY) at
home, horse riding, quad bike riding, rugby union and snow sports...
Based on moderate injuries, cycling is less dangerous than many
recreationa and every day activities. We conclude that fear of cycling
in car-dependent New Zealand arises mainly from other causes than risk
of injury..."

Their metric was a bit unusual. They first used information on typical
monthly exposure for those who chose each activity in the list; and they
calculated expected injuries for a typical exposure (multiplied by a
million to shift the decimal point for easier discussion). For example,
horse riders don't tend to ride as often as transportational cyclists,
so if the per-hour injury rate were identical, horse riding would get a
sort of bonus and cycling would be penalized.

But horse riding is not identical in danger to bicycling. In fact, they
found "a typical exposure to cycling ... was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than
DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding, 60 to 140 times safer
than skiing and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby." That's even though
the "typical exposure to cycling" is many more hours per year than most
of the activities they rated.

They also note "Also, we have not accounted for other impacts on health
than injury, although these mostly weigh heavily in favour of the
bicycle. (Numerous studies report that health gains from increased
physical activity exceed by a wide margin detrimental effects of injury
and pollution.)"

Further on, they say injury "...figures are very small in absolute
terms, and cannot explain why bicycles are singled out as 'unsafe'."
But they note the "Danger! Danger!" tendency of most bike safety
material: "Road safety programmes commonly emphasise the dangers of
cycling."

Yes indeed. So how can we get people to stop claiming riding a bike is
terribly dangerous? That nonsense spews not only from certain posters
here, but from every "protected bike lane" fan, every "wear your helmet"
nanny, every "Daytime Running Lights!" whacko, every "bright yellow
jacket" fashionista.

And most of those people are dedicated bicyclists! Why is it that
bicyclists are so dedicate to shooting themselves in the foot?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

Lou

+1

On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What would be nice is if Frank wrote his essay using Google Docs and
then posted the shared link. Anyone interested could click on the link
and read it.

When I have knowledge on a subject that a lot of other people have
inquired about, I'll write something up and post it on a website or on
Google Docs. Those that aren't interested, or that think the information
is worthless, aren't burdened with having to see it at all--it doesn't
hurt my feelings if they don't want to look at it! But I've had people
so thankful for some advice that I've provided that they've wanted to
buy me a beer! One person e-mailed me that my old Bicycle Coffee Systems
web site has changed his life--wow.

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:10:36 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What?! Are you saying that most people don't analyze the relative per
time-unit or per distance unit risk of each activity that they are
contemplating engaging in prior to choosing which activities to select,
based solely on safety? Just the other day I was going to climb a ladder
to clean my gutters, prior to gardening and then taking a nap, but based
on r.b.t. posts I decided that going on a bike ride was the more logical
choice in terms of safety.

Seriously, if people listened to the "Danger Danger" narrative,
constantly being spewed by Frank, they'd construct a plastic bubble to
live in--though even that might not be sufficiently safe.

Some people simply enjoy being pedantic and don't realize how tiresome
and annoying it is to others. Fortunately, in the case of Usenet,
there's a simple solution to pedantic posters.

Actually, I was going to rugby to work, but I couldn't find 29 other guys to go with me -- or a rugby ball.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:10:36 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What?! Are you saying that most people don't analyze the relative per
time-unit or per distance unit risk of each activity that they are
contemplating engaging in prior to choosing which activities to select,
based solely on safety? Just the other day I was going to climb a ladder
to clean my gutters, prior to gardening and then taking a nap, but based
on r.b.t. posts I decided that going on a bike ride was the more logical
choice in terms of safety.

Seriously, if people listened to the "Danger Danger" narrative,
constantly being spewed by Frank, they'd construct a plastic bubble to
live in--though even that might not be sufficiently safe.

Some people simply enjoy being pedantic and don't realize how tiresome
and annoying it is to others. Fortunately, in the case of Usenet,
there's a simple solution to pedantic posters.

Simply driving a car is more dangerous than being an MS-13 gang member and people do not stop to analyze that. So the truth is far nearer Frank's essay than the mindless following of custom.

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:10:36 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What?! Are you saying that most people don't analyze the relative per
time-unit or per distance unit risk of each activity that they are
contemplating engaging in prior to choosing which activities to select,
based solely on safety? Just the other day I was going to climb a ladder
to clean my gutters, prior to gardening and then taking a nap, but based
on r.b.t. posts I decided that going on a bike ride was the more logical
choice in terms of safety.

Seriously, if people listened to the "Danger Danger" narrative,
constantly being spewed by Frank, they'd construct a plastic bubble to
live in--though even that might not be sufficiently safe.

Some people simply enjoy being pedantic and don't realize how tiresome
and annoying it is to others. Fortunately, in the case of Usenet,
there's a simple solution to pedantic posters.

Frank wasn't making a "Danger, Danger" comment there. Exactly the opposite. It probably pays to read him.

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 8:21:27 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What would be nice is if Frank wrote his essay using Google Docs and
then posted the shared link. Anyone interested could click on the link
and read it.

When I have knowledge on a subject that a lot of other people have
inquired about, I'll write something up and post it on a website or on
Google Docs. Those that aren't interested, or that think the information
is worthless, aren't burdened with having to see it at all--it doesn't
hurt my feelings if they don't want to look at it! But I've had people
so thankful for some advice that I've provided that they've wanted to
buy me a beer! One person e-mailed me that my old Bicycle Coffee Systems
web site has changed his life--wow.

So your idea of knowledge is posting article written by the usual morons who consider themselves "journalists"?

Haven't we just watched the moronic press push global warming and Trump is colluding with Russia for almost three years now?

On Fri, 24 May 2019 02:10:30 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/24/2019 12:22 AM, wrote:

snip

Everyone finds cycling as dangerous as he or she experiences it so you can stop your long essays. They don't change anything. They only make you look pedant.

What?! Are you saying that most people don't analyze the relative per
time-unit or per distance unit risk of each activity that they are
contemplating engaging in prior to choosing which activities to select,
based solely on safety? Just the other day I was going to climb a ladder
to clean my gutters, prior to gardening and then taking a nap, but based
on r.b.t. posts I decided that going on a bike ride was the more logical
choice in terms of safety.

Seriously, if people listened to the "Danger Danger" narrative,
constantly being spewed by Frank, they'd construct a plastic bubble to
live in--though even that might not be sufficiently safe.

Some people simply enjoy being pedantic and don't realize how tiresome
and annoying it is to others. Fortunately, in the case of Usenet,
there's a simple solution to pedantic posters.

"don't realize how tiresome and annoying it is to others"??

Ah, I understand now. The lies and fantasies that you post here are
intended as entertainment. Goodness, and here we had thought that you
were serious with your fantasies about bicycle paths and upgrading
bicycle frames and bright bicycle lights and all of the other jokes
that you have posted here.
--
cheers,

John B.