Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

-snip-
Frank Krygowski wrote:
-snip-
The US has over 600,000 losses of life per year due to heart
problems. If people weren't scared away from cycling,
that total
would be significantly smaller. Those are needless
losses of life.
-snip-


Assuming some proportion of them had pensions and benefits
we could be net ahead on that, actually.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Nov 28, 1:02*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The US has over 4000 pedestrian deaths each year. *If people weren't
afraid to cycle, fewer of them would die, for two reasons: first,
cycling *is safer per mile despite the common refusal to believe that;
and second, more cyclists would mean fewer motorist mowing down
pedestrians. *Thus, the fear of cycling causes even more needless
losses of life.

They only need to be more careful crossing the road.

The US also has roughly 750 bike fatalities per year. *It's one of the
least common causes of fatality in the US (down in the same
neighborhood as deaths from accidentally inhaling poisonous gases).

Again concentration on deaths.

But many cyclists, including some posting here, are willing to scare
others away from cycling by exaggerating its tiny dangers. *And they
don't even seem to care if doing so will cause even more needless
losses of life, from the above causes.

I don't call messing with 2 tonne juggernauts particularly safe,
neither do I call using a chainsaw particularly safe, nor splitting
fire wood for that matter, though I do all these things with care.
The dangers are not tiny, in my opinion, they are real. I've been
witness to and involved in enough cycling accidents over the years to
know it is dangerous, yet it doesn't prevent me from cycling -
carefully.

I've collided with three vehicles that failed to give way, and been
side swiped by another three. Practically every cyclist I know has
had similar experiences. The most recent was when a motorist pulled
out in front of our bunch while we were coasting down a hill at 60 km/
h. All except one was able to brake and swerve around this car, but
the one who hit it sailed over the bonnet and smashed his kneecap on
the road. That's right - his knee cap got surgically removed. He can
still ride but with much less strength than he used to have. If that
is a tiny danger in your terminology, we speak different languages.

My wife used to cycle in Brisbane before she moved to Melbourne. She
doesn't cycle anymore. Melbourne drivers make her too nervous. She
is obviously aware of the potential dangers and finds them
unacceptable.

I don't know of any study anywhere that has not found cycling to be a
net positive, by decreasing needless deaths and by increasing the
quality of life. *But here we have posts by people who would make
cycling sound extremely dangerous even if there were just one cycling
death in 100 million miles of riding.

You miss the point. I don't give a rats ass about your statistics.
If you cannot see that sharing the road with motor vehicles is
dangerous, there's no point discussing anything more.

Astonishing.

Indeed.

JS.

On Nov 28, 1:33*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 25, 7:14*pm, James wrote:

How do you account for the cycling deaths and injuries if cycling is
so safe?

How do you account for 35,000 or so people killed inside motor
vehicles? *Do you say driving is dangerous?

Why do you try to change the subject?

How about the pedestrian deaths, likehttp://tinyurl.com/29tdxszor
like the other 4000 that occur each year in the US? *Are you claiming
that walking is dangerous?

No, only crossing the road.

How do you account for the swimming deaths, with about 3000 drownings
per year in the US? *Do you also say swimming is dangerous?

Yes, we have fences around backyard swimming pools and lifeguards in
public swimming areas. The laws regarding life jackets in small boats
have been tightened recently.

How about the over 4000 choking deaths per year in the US? *Does that
mean eating is dangerous?

It can be, particularly if you have a food allergy. Thankfully I'm
not afflicted by one, and I don't remember the last time I was choking
on food, however I recall the last cycling accident I had. A motorist
failed to give way and drove out in front of me and a mate as we were
cycling over Mt Dandenong. My mate dived down the left gutter but I
had nowhere else to go. Washed off a lot of speed and managed to get
the front wheel passed the back of the car, but the bike was sideways
and my knee smacked the rear quarter panel. Left a huge dent in the
car. I did at least two forward rolls and saw sky/earth/sky/earth.
Thankfully I was mostly uninjured. A little neck strain and a sore
knee. The elderly driver was insured and paid for new levers, bars,
bar tape and saddle.

Is there _anything_ that you wouldn't call dangerous? *Or do you wring
your hands only about riding a bike?

I do many things I would say are dangerous activities. I do them with
great care. I don't like recovering from injury, and death is even
harder to recover from - unless you're a bit special and get buried in
a tomb in a Roman occupied territory, after first being tortured.

... regardless of how often Frank and the like shout about how safe the
statistics make it look.

Yes, I understand, James. *It doesn't matter if other activities cause
many more fatalities or serious injuries.

You don't have statistics on serious injury, Frank. Dead people are
so much easier to count.

*It doesn't matter if they
are worse on a per population basis, a per hour basis or a per mile
basis. *It doesn't matter whether you have any valid data at all to
prove your point.

My own observation is good enough for me. Your statistics mean very
little to me, most of them are not ever related to the same country or
city that I live in.

Nothing matters except to work as hard as possible to portray riding a
bicycle as terribly dangerous. *Oh, and to mock and deride those who
produce information showing it to be relatively safe, or beneficial.

You're a fine example of "mock and deride".

You describe the dangers as terrible.

You talk of wringing hands.

JS.

On Nov 28, 11:46*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

[hundreds of truly silly posts]

This thread is excruciatingly funny. But someone really should send
Franki-boy back to school to study logic and get a grasp of the
meaning of statistics.

And maybe they should start with remedial English comprehension; it
really does seem to me that you guys think you say A, Franki-boy reads
B, Franki-boy clumsily replies to C, you respond to C, Franki-boy
reads D, clumsily responds to E, you read E... und so weiter, ad
eternum, omni ad paternoster, omnia vincit bull****.

Andre Jute
Before Freud wanted to have sex with his mother, psychology was about
perception

And you thought someone needed to intentionally stir the pot.

JS.

David Scheidt wrote:
wrote:
:On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:28:47 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
wrote:

:On Nov 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
: On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
:
: wrote:
: On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:
:
: Are you suggesting that there were still a million structural fires in
: 2002 in the USA, just as there were in 1977, but that half a million
: of them were not reported because people woke up, put the fires out,
: and didn't bother to call the fire department so that they could file
: insurance claims?
:
: No. But I am suggesting that you have no data pertaining
: to how many times smoke detectors worked or didn't work or
: were even installed in any of these locations.
:
: Dear Duane,
:
: Twenty-five years of data from 1977 to 2002 show no sign of smoke
: detectors reducing the rate of residential fire deaths versus
: structural fires.
:
: The million structural fires and six thousand residential deaths
: simply declined at the same rate, year by year, to half a million and
:three thousand.
:
:You could hardly make better graphs showing a total lack of effect
:
:Structure fires declined? Is it your contention that there is no
:correlation between smoke detector use and decrease in structure fires
:(with a corresponding decease in deaths)? It seems to me you could
:hardly have a better demonstration that, at the very least,
:establishes exactly that correlation.
:DR

ear DR,

:Are you suggesting that smoke detectors prevent fires?

Are you really as dumb as you act?



Carl's simply pointing out that smoke detectors have little
utility but a great fan base.

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

On Nov 28, 9:23*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 28, 11:46*pm, Andre Jute wrote:





Frank Krygowski wrote:

[hundreds of truly silly posts]

This thread is excruciatingly funny. But someone really should send
Franki-boy back to school to study logic and get a grasp of the
meaning of statistics.

And maybe they should start with remedial English comprehension; it
really does seem to me that you guys think you say A, Franki-boy reads
B, Franki-boy clumsily replies to C, you respond to C, Franki-boy
reads D, clumsily responds to E, you read E... und so weiter, ad
eternum, omni ad paternoster, omnia vincit bull****.

Andre Jute
Before Freud wanted to have sex with his mother, psychology was about
perception

And you thought someone needed to intentionally stir the pot.

Oh, I don't indulge in involuntary cooking. You can get burned, making
cooking more dangerous than cycling, eh Franki-boy? - AJ

On Nov 28, 1:18 pm, James wrote:
On Nov 28, 1:33 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:


snip


Nothing matters except to work as hard as possible to portray riding a
bicycle as terribly dangerous. Oh, and to mock and deride those who
produce information showing it to be relatively safe, or beneficial.

You're a fine example of "mock and deride".

You describe the dangers as terrible.

You talk of wringing hands.


He tells me I imagine it :-)

AMuzi wrote:
avid Scheidt wrote:
: wrote:
: :On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:28:47 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie
: wrote:
:
: :On Nov 25, 10:04 pm, wrote:
: : On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
: :
: : wrote:
: : On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:
: :
: : Are you suggesting that there were still a million structural fires in
: : 2002 in the USA, just as there were in 1977, but that half a million
: : of them were not reported because people woke up, put the fires out,
: : and didn't bother to call the fire department so that they could file
: : insurance claims?
: :
: : No. But I am suggesting that you have no data pertaining
: : to how many times smoke detectors worked or didn't work or
: : were even installed in any of these locations.
: :
: : Dear Duane,
: :
: : Twenty-five years of data from 1977 to 2002 show no sign of smoke
: : detectors reducing the rate of residential fire deaths versus
: : structural fires.
: :
: : The million structural fires and six thousand residential deaths
: : simply declined at the same rate, year by year, to half a million and
: :three thousand.
: :
: :You could hardly make better graphs showing a total lack of effect
: :
: :Structure fires declined? Is it your contention that there is no
: :correlation between smoke detector use and decrease in structure fires
: :(with a corresponding decease in deaths)? It seems to me you could
: :hardly have a better demonstration that, at the very least,
: :establishes exactly that correlation.
: :DR
:
: ear DR,
:
: :Are you suggesting that smoke detectors prevent fires?
:
: Are you really as dumb as you act?
:
:

:Carl's simply pointing out that smoke detectors have little
:utility but a great fan base.

No. he's not. He's conflating "structure fire" with "any
sort of fire". He might think he is, in which the answer is 'yes,
he's as dumb as he acts'. Or he might be ignoring the facts, because
they don't support his position, in which case he's acting dumb, at
best.

The facts are that in structures with no smoke alarms of any sort, there
were 9.6 deaths per thousand fires in the period 2003-6. In buildings
with any sort of smoke alarm (battery and uilt in) the rate was 7 per
1000. IN builidings with battery operated alarms, the rate was 8.3; in
buildings with built in alarms the rate was 4.5. That's pretty good
evidence that smoke alarms actually save lives. (Built in alarms are not
battery powered, except as a backup, and can be ganged together, so that
any one detecting smoke sounds all of them. That's required by code in
new construction in many places.)


--
sig 109

On 11/28/2010 1:15 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:53 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:


And we want an anonymous ...

Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007

Just what is a "Tºm Shermªn " if not anonymous?

Super-scripted letters too hard to figure out?

And what is it doing in Michigan?

Too hard to figure out?

Sounds a lot like the simpleminded poster who never has anything
constructive to say. Just whines about the names used by other
posters. Hell he won't even stand up for his role model "Kreepy
Krygo."

What on earth are you going on about?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Nov 28, 2:18 pm, James wrote:

You don't have statistics on serious injury, Frank. ...

Is that what he told you?

He does, and they look pretty nasty for cycling relative to other
modes of transport and other activities.