|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 10:36*am, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 27, 10:57 am, wrote: A) They're not my statistics. B) If you have no idea why the statistics are wrong, perhaps you should reconsider your premise. So Carl, you have had time to reassess YOUR hypothesis or come up with some argument that YOUR statistics (the ones YOU cited) do NOT show at least a * correlation between smoke detectors use and a reduction in structure fires. *Which is it? DR Dear DR, A) Do smoke detectors cause time to run backward, making the fire that causes the smoke disappear? B) Did smoke detectors cause the parallel 50% drop over the same 25-year period in outdoor fires, much like the famous study that showed how helmets prevent leg inuries? C) Did smoke detectors caused the impressive drop over the same 25-year period in car fires? Carl- You truly sound silly. Are you trying to be humorous or just trying to demonstrate that you have abandoned any actual "thinking?" Your stats, cut and pasted from: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...35f70ad835af94 year structural residential fires fire deaths 1977 1,098,000 5,865 2002 519,000 2,670 Your stats not mine - Operative term "STRUCTURAL fires" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_fire Now, you mentioned car fires. You forgot birthday candles. Do they fall into the category of STRUCTURAL fires? How about campfires? Barbecues? Fireworks? Forest fires? Is it your contention that smoke detectors are likely to be found installed in those situations? We were talking about smoke detectors weren't we? From your life experience do you really have difficulty with the concept that a small fire (which produces detectable smoke) can conceivably be detected and prevented from turning into a large (i.e. stucture) fire? Please answer with a simple yes or no. If you must answer yes, please also explain. See if you can do so without making up additional facts (real, statistical or hypothetical), without loaded rhetorical questions, and without emotionally enhanced adjectives adverbs or nouns. I am sure many here will get a kick out of your answer. Especially if you continue the excavation of the hole you have dug so far. I really don't care if you find smoke detectors valueless. But please don't suggest that it is something that is demonstrated by the stats you supplied and your WILD analysis and subsequent rhetorical questions. DR |
Ads |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 11:28*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:26*am, RobertH wrote: On Nov 28, 6:13 pm, James wrote: He does, and they look pretty nasty for cycling relative to other modes of transport and other activities. I'm sure he does really. *Frank only seems to mention the deaths though. *I asked why at one point and was told it's often too hard to know who to include in the statistics because everyones opinion of "serious" injury differs. *Handy excuse, don't you think? Yeah. It's true that the injury numbers are estimates, but they are pretty highly evolved estimates, derived from a very large sample. And the supposedly solid fatality numbers that Frank has been repeating for decades turn out to be like 15% lower than the actual pedalcyclist fatality count anyway, although that, I'm sure he'll point out, still can be considered low...The injury data is another matter entirely.. A "serious" injury is also easy to locate among the other injuries -- it's the one that causes the patient to be admitted to the hospital. By this measure American bicyclists are on the receiving end of about 30,000 serious injuries per year. And so...? *Should we stop saying bicycling is a good thing, and just warn people to give it up, because it's so dangerous? There he goes again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question DR |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 7:03*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/28/2010 10:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: Wishing for a reduction in danger is not the same thing as claiming "extreme" danger. It can be. You need to review the concepts of "sets" and "subsets." - Frank Krygowski |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 7:08*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/28/2010 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: The Portland study delivered a reminder every month, asking participants to input any bicycling injury, no matter how small, that occurred since the previous monthly reminder. *(That would apparently include things like scratches from lifting the bike onto a bus rack.) Or not. An injury that required five weeks to heal would be remembered at least a year later, and could have been recorded with an annual survey. *But such memorable events were far more severe than the minimum injury they intended to record. *They wanted to miss not even a tiny scratch you'd forget five weeks later. *Therefore they asked about injuries every four weeks. Wild (and self-serving) speculation. Did you read the article? Although this confuses you, Duane, it should be obvious that a person requiring five weeks to heal from an accident, cannot forget that accident five weeks after it happens. *The unhealed injury would remind him every day. Now, regarding my judgment of injuries: *I _do_ think an injury so minor as to be completely _forgotten_ in 5 weeks is inconsequential. You should give lessons on circular arguing. Oh wait... The "Oh wait" was indeed appropriate, because there was nothing circular about my argument. The study authors wanted to miss not even minor injuries, so every month they asked about _any_ injury, even tiny ones. And they used the term "major injury" for _any_ injury that _any_ medical person had looked at. I think "major injury" should not include those that heal quickly, without complications, after only very basic treatment like cleaning and band-aids. Do you disagree? When your kid got a scrape on a knee, did you really call that a "major injury"? And I think an injury likely forgotten after a month is negligible. But this study's authors faulted other studies for failing to record such injuries. The study was obviously designed to hype the "danger" of bicycling. And you defend it. - Frank Krygowski |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 8:39*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/27/2010 3:23 PM, James wrote: On Nov 28, 3:33 am, "T m Sherm n _ --"twsherman REMOVE@THIS southslope.net *wrote [re bike lanes]: And put you in conflict with the door zone. Sure. If the bike lane is along a street with parking. This isn't always the case. Besides that, what do you do when the speed limit is 70kph? *Take the lane and everyone behind you slows down and politely smiles and waves? a) Duane, we shouldn't have to repeat this so often, but: If there is room for a bike lane, there is room to share the lane without the stripe. The bike lane stripe adds no pavement width. b) And what do I do when the speed limit is 70 kph = 45 mph and the lane is too narrow to share? Yes, I take the lane. I have a right to the road, and I have a specific right to take the lane, called out in state law. Everyone behind me does slow down. I don't care if they smile and wave, and I don't bother to look for those actions. Please don't pretend a cyclists can't ride a 45 mph street without a bike lane. That kind of thinking could get us segregated off most of the world's roads. - Frank Krygowski |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Per Frank Krygowski:
How is it that cycling causes as many hospitalizations as walking down the street, yet walkers get killed six or seven times as often? The fatality counts for cyclists and peds aren't even close. Walking causes far more deaths. On the face of it, it seems provocative to assert that walking is more dangerous than cycling - especially if, in the back of one's mind, there are the images of people walking on sidewalks and cyclists dicing it up with moving traffic. But on a per-mile basis, assuming people walking and cycling in identical venues, it seems to make sense. Take it as a given that most deaths either way happen when a motor vehicle hits a person. Walking is what? 3 mph? Figure 18 mph for cycling. With those numbers on a per-mile basis, you've got the pedestrian exposed to drunks, people on cell phones, people texting, people steering with their knees while doing email and so-forth... six times as much. i.e. it takes the pedestrian six times as long to cover a mile and therefore is exposed to six times as many passing vehicles. -- PeteCresswell |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 29, 9:31*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/28/2010 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm astounded by your lack of ability to comprehend what *you read! You asked me to quote where you said something. *But I never said that you said anything. *I said that you "think" something. And you were wrong about what I think. I have never said, nor thought, nor implied, nor hinted that an injury that takes five weeks to heal is an inconsequential one. Your statement, claiming that was what I think, was a perfect example of a straw man argument. Look up that term. - Frank Krygowski |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/29/2010 2:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:39 am, Duane wrote: On 11/27/2010 3:23 PM, James wrote: On Nov 28, 3:33 am, "T m Sherm n _ --"twsherman REMOVE@THIS southslope.net wrote [re bike lanes]: And put you in conflict with the door zone. Sure. If the bike lane is along a street with parking. This isn't always the case. Besides that, what do you do when the speed limit is 70kph? Take the lane and everyone behind you slows down and politely smiles and waves? a) Duane, we shouldn't have to repeat this so often, but: If there is room for a bike lane, there is room to share the lane without the stripe. Will you stop referring to me personally? And a) Frank we shouldn't have to repeat this so often but: The purpose of a bike lane is not to add with to the street but to reserve part of the existing with for bikes. The bike lane stripe adds no pavement width. No kidding. b) And what do I do when the speed limit is 70 kph = 45 mph and the lane is too narrow to share? Yes, I take the lane. I have a right to the road, and I have a specific right to take the lane, called out in state law. Everyone behind me does slow down. I don't care if they smile and wave, and I don't bother to look for those actions. And this is what everyone does. It's just that most people don't consider this to be without some risk. And before you start, "some risk" does not mean anything more that some risk. Please don't pretend a cyclists can't ride a 45 mph street without a bike lane. That kind of thinking could get us segregated off most of the world's roads. Stop arguing against what you would like me to have said. I didn't say anything about not being able to ride on the frigging road. I asked if you would take the lane, forcing everyone behind you to slow to your speed and expect them to smile and be happy. |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/29/2010 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:31 am, Duane wrote: On 11/28/2010 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm astounded by your lack of ability to comprehend what you read! You asked me to quote where you said something. But I never said that you said anything. I said that you "think" something. And you were wrong about what I think. I have never said, nor thought, nor implied, nor hinted that an injury that takes five weeks to heal is an inconsequential one. Your statement, claiming that was what I think, was a perfect example of a straw man argument. Look up that term. I've had ample opportunity to see it in practice lately. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |