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

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 14th 19, 10:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:27:51 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010..* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.

My experience shows nothing of the kind.


You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.


In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.


These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.


Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

Andre Jute
Numerate


With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position.

Cheers


Nope. Those figures are official, and my results are achieved by simple division according to principles long agreed by the vast majority of bicyclists (that your health is worth some extra risk). The amazing thing isn't my numbers, but that a clown like Krygowski was so incompetent with statistics as to ***overstate*** the danger of cycling for so long until I came and did the job right.

Everyone, including Krygowski (without thanks, of course), now uses my numbers, in the vast number of cases without attribution, often without knowing who calculated those numbers.

You can read my whole article, dated 12 June 2010, at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/THE$20CASE$20FOR$20A$20MANDATORY$20CYCLE$20HELMET$ 20LAW$20(IN$20THE$20UNITED$20STATES$20OF$20AMERICA )$20by$20Andre$20Jute%7Csort:date/rec.bicycles.tech/ow2rIVqZ_DU/pdrY0lrdze8J

If you want to discuss the numbers, or the conclusions from them, rather than fling thirdhand sneers from Samuel Langhorne Clemens, I'd be delighted.

Andre Jute
Good statistics are like a Bach cantata, incomparably more than the sum of their numbers -- Andre Jute, Chairman's valedictory address, MASA
Ads
  #12  
Old May 14th 19, 11:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:35:04 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.


3.74 million Australians cycle? That's 14.75% of the population. Amazing. I don't even remember knowing more than one cyclist in Melbourne in, to choose a representative year, 1974. He used to cycle from Toorak holding up his spare bike all the way to my house in St Vincent Place because he was so keen to have someone willing to cycle with him.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.


According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.


Even at a more reasonable assumption of 15kph average for cyclists, cycling would still be slightly less dangerous than motoring, with additional health benefits and longer life... All you have to prove is that cycling is no more dangerous than motoring.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.


That could be a case for education, for mandatory helmets working at urban speeds (as in the New York compilation from hospital and police reports at the beginning of the century), or for separation of cyclists, or even as proof that the cycle advocates/government/cyclists/motorists/somebody is doing something right and shouldn't be interfered with. You'd need more information to decide which.

--
JS


My experience of 30 years' cycling in the countryside has fostered a belief that cyclists and motorists can easily work out a modus vivid among them. So, with many more cyclists in Australia, perhaps differences are now more benignly handled. One oddity here in Ireland, which is in fact beneficial, is that within living memory the police in the country districts had to provide their own bicycle (presumably to chase sheep thieves when they went bush -- some of the older policemen tell hilarious stories of one bicycle being wheeled around and around the station house window when the inspector came on his rounds) and some of the younger policemen still cycle for recreation.

Andre Jute
Put the police on bicycles!

  #13  
Old May 14th 19, 02:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.

My experience shows nothing of the kind.


You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.


In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.


These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.


Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

Andre Jute
Numerate


With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position.

Cheers


Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever
drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation
(whatever participation means) went up 75%?

Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to
compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased
accidents. Most white papers that I've read regarding participation
indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents.


  #14  
Old May 14th 19, 02:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 13/05/2019 8:00 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:42:36 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:09:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.


In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively
stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40.
https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf

In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54
hours each on average.

Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million
hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually.
Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently.

If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per
100 million km.

According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100
million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car
occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians).

Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this.

There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is
that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of
weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years,
where as fatalities have remained relatively constant.

My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban
areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car
traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists.

I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png

-- Jay Beattie.


Where are the cars? Speed limit sign of 50. That looks like an organized event closed to motor vehicles. Am I wrong about that?


Disorganized event -- the Providence Bridge Pedal. I'm just kidding about it being morning traffic, which occurs elsewhere for me.


Traffic in Montreal is more insane than usual with some major road
renovations coupled with the usual road repairs due to cheap mod asphalt
and hard winters.

A friend was just telling me his girlfriend who works near me wants to
know how dangerous it is to ride to work as the commute is getting
ridiculous. I'm not sure what to tell her as I know her and don't think
she has, as James says the ability of a skilled ninja cyclist.

I suggested she try the route and see how it goes. There's a section
with an overpass and junction of two arteries that gets crowded in rush
hour. You have to have pretty thick skin to deal with that. My boss
stopped riding to work because she couldn't deal with that section.

  #15  
Old May 14th 19, 04:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/14/2019 9:26 AM, Duane wrote:

Traffic in Montreal is more insane than usual with some major road
renovations coupled with the usual road repairs due to cheap mod asphalt
and hard winters.

A friend was just telling me his girlfriend who works near me wants to
know how dangerous it is to ride to work as the commute is getting
ridiculous.Â* I'm not sure what to tell her as I know her and don't think
she has, as James says the ability of a skilled ninja cyclist.

I suggested she try the route and see how it goes.Â* There's a section
with an overpass and junction of two arteries that gets crowded in rush
hour.Â* You have to have pretty thick skin to deal with that.Â* My boss
stopped riding to work because she couldn't deal with that section.


Duane won't read this, of course. But to further the discussion:

If a novice were asking me about riding to work, the first thing I'd do
is direct them to some educational material. As I've been saying,
everyone thinks they know all there is to know about bicycling,
including bicycling in traffic. But there is always more to learn; and
novices often have serious misunderstandings.

So I'd begin by providing a copy of _Street Smarts_. Either a physical
copy or on the web at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm
I'd also note that some of the material in there has been improved - for
example, three feet of clearance from a parked car is not sufficient. (A
new edition is due out very soon.) I'd heavily emphasize riding on the
road, not the sidewalk. I'd warn about door zones, right hooks, left
crosses and explain taking the lane. I'd also warn about the most
frequent crashes, which are caused by road surface problems.

Simultaneously, I'd begin by consulting on routes to work. Most people
seem to think their bike route to work must be the same as their car
route. (Dozens of people asked me over the years "You ride your bike to
work??? On the FREEWAY???") Sit down with a map and search for a
pleasant route. It's OK if it's somewhat longer than the car route. Pay
attention to traffic, hills, neighborhood safety, aesthetics, etc. Also,
be alert for handy cut-through short cuts that allow a bike but restrict
cars. If there's a bike map of the area, I'd use it as a tool, but not
slavishly. No map rates all streets, and rating accuracy varies.
Overall, keep in mind that a pleasant route makes all the difference.

I'd explore whether the person's schedule might allow commuting at
off-peak times. Sometimes 15 minutes earlier or later can greatly reduce
traffic conflicts.

I'd check out the bike for general suitability and for mechanical
soundness. Included would be some bags and racks for carrying whatever
needs carried (Briefcase? Nicer clothes? Rain gear?) and equipment like
fenders and lights, if rides will be in the dark. I'd advise on buying
whatever might be needed for the bike, including pump, spare tube, patch
kit, tools, etc. And I'd give a flat fixing lesson. (Not that I ever got
very many flats while commuting.)

I'd give advice on clothing. Short rides can usually be done in business
clothes. Long ones may require changing. But novices may have problems
like shoe laces or pants cuffs caught in the chain, dressing too hot (if
they're not used to physical exertion) or too cold. Some may even have
detail problems with things like glasses or hair styles.

I'd do a dry run with the person on a weekend, and spend time talking
about very specific details. "You'll need to take the lane here" and
"Watch for turning cars here" and "This is where your bike needs to be
to trigger a green light," etc.

And if you have a day off, I'd consider riding in with the person on
their first trip. Maybe showing up for the ride home, too.

Above all, I'd try to "sell" the concept. Over my decades of commuting,
I always loved the time saving aspect. Sure, it added half an hour a day
to my travel time. But it took away half an hour of time wasted inside a
car, and gave me an hour of riding. And I never had to consider driving
to a health club to exercise.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #16  
Old May 14th 19, 04:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:14:18 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then.

***
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

***

Andre Jute
* A complete version is at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then.

My experience shows nothing of the kind.

You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom.

Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car.

In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well

I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way.

These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities.

I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few.

Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists.

I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation.

Andre Jute
Numerate


With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position.

Cheers


Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever
drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation
(whatever participation means) went up 75%?


That's politics, not statistics, and a pretty low class of politics at that.. A more sophisticated trick, much practised by the Climate Alarm Mob, is choosing a reference period to favour your "preferred narrative" rather than the objective general truth the numbers point to when compared to longterm cycles. Even more sophisticated is using log-log graph paper to either highlight or de-emphasize a huge change, and simply outright crookery is taking the graph and the scale away to leave only the misleading trend lines.

That sort of film-flam is easily seen through, and easily fixed by demanding that all results be normalised to an agreed reference, like the easily understood "fatalities per 100 million kilometres" that James uses, and insisting on seeing the raw numbers rather than the graph.

In any event, if "participation" increased 75% from some non-negligible base, I would expect the accident rate expressed on some agreed reference to fall because of your next point:

Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to
compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased
accidents. Most white papers that I've read regarding participation
indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents.


James's numbers claim that one in seven Australians cycle over two hours a week, but that the fatalities remain stable, whereas less serious incidents have increased. He thinks it possible that the increased cycling is by people "without ninja skills" taking up bicycle commuting. Another possible explanation is that drivers see more cyclists and therefore have perceived a need to come to terms with them, hence the average incident seriousness has been lowered. Maybe there's the small beginnings of a cycling culture (which has attitudinal advantages among even non-cyclists, as in The Netherlands) in Australia. I won't be betting my own money on it just yet, but one in 7 Australians cycling is, if true, at the very least a pointer to an amazing future for the Big Country.

Andre Jute
Potential
  #17  
Old May 14th 19, 05:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/14/2019 9:14 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose
which ones to use to support their position.


Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever
drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation
(whatever participation means) went up 75%?

Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to
compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased
accidents.Â* Most white papers that I've read regarding participation
indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents.


It would be _really_ interesting if Duane would read just a little bit
about what's being discussed.

The "cycling participation ... went up by 75%" seems to refer to the
Moorehead report on the mile of "protected" bike lane in Columbus, Ohio.
On page 8 of that report, Moorehead brags in bold type that "Level of
Bicycling" had a "~75% increase."

But on page 12, he doesn't spotlight the change in crash counts nearly
as boldly. In fact, he never lists it as a percent change. Instead, he
notes that in 2011 to 2014 there were a total of six crashes.

After the "protection" was installed, in less than two years (2016 to
September 2017) there were 24 crashes.

So apparently, this facility increased the average annual crash count
from 1.5 to over 12.

Duane, do you want to calculate the percent increase in crashes? Or
shall I do the simple math for you?

Hint: The percent increase in crashes is WAY bigger than the increase in
riding. The riders are at FAR more danger now.

The paper _should_ be available at

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


That URL works for me every time I use it on every machine. It's worked
for other people who have discussed the report online. I apologize if it
somehow isn't working for some others. I see no reason it should be
restricted by geography.

- Frank Krygowski
  #18  
Old May 15th 19, 05:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 15/5/19 2:06 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2019 9:14 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:


The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose
which ones to use to support their position.


Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever
drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation
(whatever participation means) went up 75%?

Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to
compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased
accidents.Â* Most white papers that I've read regarding participation
indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents.


It would be _really_ interesting if Duane would read just a little bit
about what's being discussed.

The "cycling participation ... went up by 75%" seems to refer to the
Moorehead report on the mile of "protected" bike lane in Columbus, Ohio.
On page 8 of that report, Moorehead brags in bold type that "Level of
Bicycling" had a "~75% increase."

But on page 12, he doesn't spotlight the change in crash counts nearly
as boldly. In fact, he never lists it as a percent change. Instead, he
notes that in 2011 to 2014 there were a total of six crashes.

After the "protection" was installed, in less than two years (2016 to
September 2017) there were 24 crashes.

So apparently, this facility increased the average annual crash count
from 1.5 to over 12.

Duane, do you want to calculate the percent increase in crashes? Or
shall I do the simple math for you?

Hint: The percent increase in crashes is WAY bigger than the increase in
riding. The riders are at FAR more danger now.

The paper _should_ be available at

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


That URL works for me every time I use it on every machine. It's worked
for other people who have discussed the report online. I apologize if it
somehow isn't working for some others. I see no reason it should be
restricted by geography.


Certainly the crashes that result in injury seem to have increased
significantly more than the increase in participation, however "all
crashes" doesn't seem to have changed much at all. Curious.

It seems as though the severity of the crashes has increased more than
the increase in cyclists. It seems the infra created greater chances of
conflict.

--
JS
  #19  
Old May 15th 19, 01:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/13/2019 3:34 PM, James wrote:

snip

The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2
years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically
significant decline in participation.
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf


The Australian participation study states "Participation is defined as
the number of individuals who have cycled for any journey or purpose and
in any location over a specified time period." They aren't measuring
distance traveled.

I suspect that Australia mirrors many other countries where there is a
marked increase in both bicycle commuting and longer recreational rides,
but a decrease in the absolute number of riders that they could count.
It's surprising how many people have a garage with a bunch of bicycles
that have been sitting unused for years, and may be taken out for a
short ride very infrequently.

I recall one "survey" that was doing actual counts of riders and they
intentionally derated their count because they said that they didn't
want to count riders who were passing by the counting point if they were
on an organized ride. Then they used the derated count to proclaim that
the lower number of riders was due to a helmet law. It's bad enough to
try to draw unsupported conclusions from actual data, but it's worse to
draw unsupported conclusions from fabricated data.

Be very careful when reading any "studies" referred to on
cycle-helmets.com, that site has no credibility.
  #20  
Old May 15th 19, 01:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:37:03 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped

Be very careful when reading any "studies" referred to on
cycle-helmets.com, that site has no credibility.


And due to many of your posts over the years neither do you. At least not on this newsgroup you don't.

Cheers
 




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
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 10:43 PM
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers Simon Mason[_4_] UK 7 April 6th 12 08:06 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend Anton Berlin Racing 4 June 25th 09 08:58 PM
Cycling is dangerous Garry Jones General 375 November 21st 03 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 AM.


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.