A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicycle statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 3rd 19, 11:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Bicycle statistics

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2019 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:42:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/3/2019 8:38 AM, Duane wrote:
On 03/06/2019 7:05 a.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip
As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical
treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike
fatalities - and the _greater_Â* drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due
in large part to better medical care.

You might well be correct.

Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped,
at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better
medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess
it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers
would be even worse.

"Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says"

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby
surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says



"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."

Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting
while walking.

It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American
Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other
time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole
picture."

https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in
1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period
from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those
years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate
was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki
describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the
Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts,
even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom.
--


Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should
realize) that cycling deaths are likely random.Â* Given that when dealing
with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be
outliers, this is not surprising.

We were talking specifically about fatalities, Duane. So what do you
mean by "cycling deaths are likely random" or "deaths appear to be
outliers"? Are you saying they're impervious to analysis, that we can't
discuss them at all?

It's true that biking deaths are rare. That does mean there's going to
be very visible variation in the annual count. But there's clearly a
long term downward trend over decades. It doesn't take advanced
mathematics to spot it. See http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html
for example.

Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the
morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities.Â* But this
is at best statistically misleading.Â* You end up with nonsense like
cycling is more dangerous than sky diving.Â* Or less dangerous than
gardening.

Damn, you really hate data, don't you?


I think his complaint is the lack of data in non-fatality cases. I fractured my hand in a bicycle accident and went to an urgent care clinic operated by the same clinic that provides my primary medical care. I whacked my head, too, but I wasn't complaining of a scalp wound prevented by my helmet. And my treatment would not be part of the Oregon injury data set in any event since I was not hospitalized. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEAS...regon_v2.3.pdf. I would also not be in any of the ER data sets.

Actually, all my bicycle-related injuries, including one that got me a CT scan and plastic surgery on my face probably would not be in any Oregon data set, but then again, I haven't done a comprehensive check of the reporting regulations.

Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means.


But here we have, yet again, avid bicyclists arguing that bicycling is
really more dangerous than we think, because not every bike injury is
reported.


I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than "we think because not every bike injury is reported." I'm arguing that your statistics are subject to error, including under-reporting.

Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close
friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of
them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The
other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter
went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!)
but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any
"walking injury" database.


What people? Because of the way data is collected, injuries are under-reported -- all injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter.


Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps
hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to
evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and
bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate).


Aerobic dancing has the lowest injury rate for me. Bicycling not so much. Gardening is moving up the list because I got stung on Saturday and have this big lump near my elbow. It's gross.

Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools?
How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong?

More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants
whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature
of bicycling?


Two reasons: (1) bicycling can feel very dangerous unless you do it a lot. My commute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg Those guys should be more out in the lane, but even lane center, its unpleasant, and close, fast passes are SOP. Cyclists have died on that road and been seriously injured. For most people, it's cold comfort to say "it doesn't happen much." And try that at night in the pouring rain. It is scary even to old-timers like me. On those no-visibility nights, I understand the guys with twenty retina-blasting flashers. (2) Bicyclists qua motorists look at cyclists in close quarters and say "that guy is going to get killed!" I can't remember the last time anyone said that of someone aerobic dancing. Really, watching the cyclists in London, I wondered why the mortality rate was not 50%.

Also, whether people actually do get killed is almost irrelevant. It's like getting shot at by someone who usually misses. Being shot at is no fun regardless of whether you get hit. I'm accustomed to heavy traffic and herding cars, but most people aren't and would prefer to be out of the line of fire. I am now dealing with high mileage friends who are just refusing to ride in certain places, which I find odd. They just don't like it anymore.


-- Jay Beattie.



Ads
  #62  
Old June 3rd 19, 11:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Bicycle statistics

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:26:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/3/2019 3:03 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do.* But
yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
majority of samples.

These are concepts taught in STATS 101.


It's not just using incomplete data incorrectly it's also using complete
data incorrectly. For example, carefully choosing the time-span of data
to mislead people about trends is something we've seen occur in r.b.t.
on many occasions. Selectively choose your dates and you can "prove"
that cycling rates per-capita went down, when they really have trended
up. We just saw this sort of thing happen here--you get three guesses as
who did this, and the first two don't count!

You can also design charts and graphs in a way that is highly misleading.

Also look at the source of the data. Is it from an organization or
company with a specific agenda, or is the data reliable? An anti-helmet
organization is going to carefully pick and choose their data to try to
advance their position, we've seen this happening in r.b.t. for many
years by "he who must not be named."

And of course anyone is free to make statements not supported by any
data at all. We just saw this: "I suspect the drop in bike fatalities -
and the _greater_* drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part
to better medical care." Of course the reality is that neither bike nor
pedestrian fatalities actually fell. So someone postulates a reason for
something that didn't actually happen, but phrases it in a way that is
intended to mislead the reader into accepting that the premise is
actually true.


:-) Mayor Scharf gets the gold cup for lack of self awareness, plus the
blue ribbon for hypocrisy!

Regarding Scharf's complaint about "carefully choosing the time-span of
data to mislead people about trends..." he did exactly that when he
linked to an Outside magazine article about one year of high bike
fatalities (840 in 2016) yet did not mention the easily available fact
that the fatality count dropped the very next year. (There were 783 in
2017, the last year available.)

The long term trend for both bike and pedestrian fatalities has been
downward. As shown by graphs at
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
in 1986 there were nearly 7000 pedestrian deaths and over 900 bike
deaths, with a downward trend since then.

In the last few years, both bike and pedestrian fatalities have risen,
but are still far fewer than the 1980s; so for them the question of
whether they've risen or fallen depends on "Since when?"

Bike fatalities in particular are rare, and as with any rare phenomenon
(hurricanes, earthquakes, honest politicians) scatter and random
variations in the data are to be expected.

But if Scharf wants to use just the last few years to claim that
bicycling is getting much more dangerous, what will he suppose has
caused the danger?

Could it be the use of so called "protected" bike lanes? Or perhaps it's
due to daytime running lights? After all, both of those were almost
completely absent during the "local minimum" for bike deaths, around 2010.

Are Scharf's favorite measures making things worse?


When reviewing pedestrian deaths one can only marvel. After all
pedestrians have had segregated pathways, practically for ever and yet
we are informed that pedestrian deaths are increasing. And nearly in
the same breath we are told that segregated bicycle paths will make
cycling safer?

How can this be? Segregated foot paths and pedestrian deaths are
increasing while segregated bicycle paths will make us safer?

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #63  
Old June 4th 19, 12:04 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Bicycle statistics

On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:10:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:



True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and
lots of skin ink.



Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.


One of the reasons that I never got a tattoo was that when I was just
a little fellow my great uncle stayed with us for a while. He had been
a sailor all his life and his arms were covered with tattoos, the bulk
of which, perhaps, dated back 30 - 50 years and were just blue blobs
of color on his skin.

Even at 12 years of age I could figure out that this was not
beautiful.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #64  
Old June 4th 19, 12:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycle statistics

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:22:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)



Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.


Whenever there are large races around I see very large groups of college cyclists. Three years ago a small group of us was returning from a ride down a road that leads to Stanford University. The Amgen Tour of California was in the bay area for two stages and going up this hill faster than I could go on the flats was about 100 cyclists in a group. For the rest of the year there were young cyclists everywhere in the Bay Area. The Amgen has only had one stage in the Bay Area I think for two years and the numbers of young cyclists is noticeably missing. If the manufacturers mean to stay in business they had damn well better start paying attention to this younger age group and how they grow far more interested in things when they can RACE. I don't even know if they have any Crits in the area at the moment. On the centuries the youngest people now seem to be in their early 30's.

This is a thing that the bicycle groups have been ignoring and it is showing up with a violent decline in bicycle sales in the USA.
  #65  
Old June 4th 19, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycle statistics

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:42:59 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a question about the demographics of bicycling today. Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some people say their children or one child does ride. But how many on this forum have children who do not ride ever? Yet they do.


All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of the times they can't affort a car at that age so the ride until they earn some money. After that they only ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.


"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere, it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should be. Traffic
around schools is insane─even though most students could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.


Here you'd have to have bicycles checked in and released with a ticket and guarded by an armed guard. Yesterday returning from a climbing ride I was pretty tired and a couple of young kids on funny bikes dropped me. One was sort of an oversized BMX and the other was a semi-fat tired bike with a million spoke wheels and he was lifting the bike up onto the rear wheel even going down hills. I was going to give them a rather stern talking to since this was heavy traffic but they disappeared down the flats.
  #66  
Old June 4th 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycle statistics

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 8:45:31 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Andy wrote:
I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as
well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.


Same here. But when I was growing up there were not so many soccer moms.
The typical scenario was a 1 car family with the husband taking the car to
work and the wife taking care of the house and kids. It was certainly
like that for my family and most of our friends. So you had the choice to
walk or ride a bike.

I’m not saying the old days were better. They were not. Just different.
Now it takes more incentive to get kids on bikes. Once they put in some
bike paths from our neighbourhood to the elementary school the kids stated
riding to school. They still do. I past some of the path on my ride to
work. I don’t take it, partially because it’s crowded with kids.
“Advocates” can complain that it instills a sense of danger around cycling
but the fact is that most parents aren’t sending their 8 year olds into
traffic.

--
duane


Especially into traffic with distracted or texting drivers. Traffic is much heavier now than when we were kids.

When we were kids how did we learn to ride in traffic?

I'm not totally against bicycle paths but I am against ones that are poorly designed, ie door zone lanes, or ones that suddenly dump bicyclists into traffic.

I remember one bike lane they installed on Bay Street in Toronto Canada. You could stand on the corner of Bay and Queen Streets and look south towards Front Street and see nary a bicyclist in the bike lane. IIRC, they eventually moved that lane to Jarvis Street another north-south main street and in turn moved it to Sherbourne Street yet another north-south street because there was so little bicycle use on it. From Bay Street to Sherbourne Street is a fair distance.

Cheers


With my screwed up memory I can't remember why I returned to bicycling other than it was after I stopped riding motorcycles. We had this older rider in the local Club - the Cherry City Cyclists - John Carroll and he spent a very great deal of time teaching all of the new comers the lay of the land. I remember him leading us up a 1,000 foot climb - Palomares Rd. and I knew every rest spot along that 4 mile route since that was the days of a 49/20 low gear and there is about a mile total of 12%. When I came out of my concussion I went to visit him and he had just died. My very good friend and owner of Witt's Bicycle Shop had also just died and another steel bike shop owner was there in his shop with no customers and three weeks later he had died.

I went down to the Pearl Izumi outlet today because they were closing and everything was half price. Of course all of my sizes were gone. He said that on memorial day is was a mess with people running around and grabbing handfuls of Size Large clothing. There was only one size 11.5 shoe in stock and the toe box wasn't wide enough for me. But my wife managed to salvage $350 worth of new stuff. I can only hope it brings her back to riding. She used to be able to drop a good pack.
  #67  
Old June 4th 19, 12:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycle statistics

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 8:45:31 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Andy wrote:
I see young kids riding. Teens too. Plenty of bikes at schools as
well.The percentage is lower than when I was growing up.


Same here. But when I was growing up there were not so many soccer moms.
The typical scenario was a 1 car family with the husband taking the car to
work and the wife taking care of the house and kids. It was certainly
like that for my family and most of our friends. So you had the choice to
walk or ride a bike.

I’m not saying the old days were better. They were not. Just different.
Now it takes more incentive to get kids on bikes. Once they put in some
bike paths from our neighbourhood to the elementary school the kids stated
riding to school. They still do. I past some of the path on my ride to
work. I don’t take it, partially because it’s crowded with kids.
“Advocates” can complain that it instills a sense of danger around cycling
but the fact is that most parents aren’t sending their 8 year olds into
traffic.

--
duane


Especially into traffic with distracted or texting drivers. Traffic is much heavier now than when we were kids.

When we were kids how did we learn to ride in traffic?

I'm not totally against bicycle paths but I am against ones that are poorly designed, ie door zone lanes, or ones that suddenly dump bicyclists into traffic.

I remember one bike lane they installed on Bay Street in Toronto Canada. You could stand on the corner of Bay and Queen Streets and look south towards Front Street and see nary a bicyclist in the bike lane. IIRC, they eventually moved that lane to Jarvis Street another north-south main street and in turn moved it to Sherbourne Street yet another north-south street because there was so little bicycle use on it. From Bay Street to Sherbourne Street is a fair distance.

Cheers


I drove 60 miles down and another back today and there were totally open roads within sight of the freeways which were packed.
  #68  
Old June 4th 19, 12:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycle statistics

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:30:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM,
wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2,
wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads:
45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a
question about the demographics of bicycling today.
Are all bicyclists getting older? Is bicycling
becoming an older person activity? Are youngsters not
taking up cycling? I have friends with children in the
late teens and 20s age groups. Some of the kids do
ride bikes. But others, their kids do not ride. Yet
they ride lots and lots. I know on this forum some
people say their children or one child does ride. But
how many on this forum have children who do not ride
ever? Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up
to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of
the times they can't affort a car at that age so the
ride until they earn some money. After that they only
ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere,
it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven somewhere
fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring
rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to
elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an
elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly
common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should
be. Traffic
around schools is insane─even though most students
could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during
elementary, middle, or high school. I mean young adults.
Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately. Younger
people. Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
becoming an older and older person activity? Are fewer
and fewer young people doing the activity? Thus making
the average age of the cyclist older and older.


I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was trendy.
(Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple living
next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a lot of
riding for a while.



So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Skateboards here are all electrified and these guys can ride a skateboard faster than you can pedal and they pay not the slightest attention to traffic laws weaving in and around traffic.
  #69  
Old June 4th 19, 01:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default Bicycle statistics

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:25:43 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:

"Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the
likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent,
the Governors Highway Safety Association says."


Not sure how the type of car/truck a person drives affects pedestrian deaths. Using a smartphone or being distracted in any manner can and will increase running over pedestrians and killing them. But driving an SUV? How does what you are driving affect whether you run someone over? I'm fairly certain a pedestrian will dies no matter which vehicle runs them over. Tercel car, Miata car, Pickup, SUV, Camry sedan. Doesn't matter. One of the engineers on this forum can figure up the amount of force/destruction generated by a 1 ton, 1.5 ton, 2 ton, 2.5 ton vehicle traveling at 30 mph, or 40 mph, or 50 mph, or 60 mph. I'm sure in all cases it is more than enough to kill a pedestrian.
  #70  
Old June 4th 19, 01:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 2:45 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 12:07 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.


Perhaps, but I would distinguish between making conclusions
based on data that is presented as incomplete, or is
obviously incomplete when published, and making conclusions
based on data that is complete when published but where
false conclusions are drawn based on using that data in a
misleading way.

Of course in r.b.t. we see both of these happening. I also
see this on an almost daily basis as an elected official,
but fortunately I live in a city with a highly educated
citizenry who are unlikely to be taken in by this sort of
misuse of data.

In some cases perfect data isn't available and never will
be. There is simply not going to be a double blind study on
every possible subject in the world--in some cases it's not
possible and in some cases when it is possible there will be
no one interested enough to fund such a study. If a thousand
ER doctors tell you that helmeted cyclists fare better in
head-impact crashes than unhelmeted cyclists then you're
probably going to believe them over someone who insists that
helmets are worthless. In both cases there is incomplete
data, but in one case there is credibility of those making
the statements. If a police captain explains to you that
you're better off making yourself more conspicuous while
bicycling then you're probably going to believe him or her
versus someone that insists that being more conspicuous is
of no value, even though the data to prove this is incomplete.


Oh, yes.

https://ktla.com/2019/05/31/pedestri...-downtown-l-a/

Motorcyclist wearing helmet lived, bareheaded pedestrian
died. That's all we need to know!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled? [email protected] General 15 June 11th 08 03:27 AM
Bridge Statistics _[_2_] UK 7 September 10th 07 02:47 PM
Bridge Statistics _[_2_] UK 4 September 4th 07 11:01 PM
Where are those statistics? bob UK 15 August 30th 07 12:31 PM
Bicycle Injury Statistics [email protected] General 8 August 1st 06 07:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.