Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 11/20/2010 1:34 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"Phil W wrote in message
...
Dan considered Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:23:01
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Nov 19, 9:46 am, Duane wrote:
On 11/19/2010 12:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, wrote:

So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents
the
statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.

Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter
injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury
Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010.

It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!"
impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny
injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study
population received in an entire year.

James is saying that using only fatalities and not other cycling
injuries is skewing the data if the data is used to determine whether
cycling is dangerous. Are you disagreeing with that?

Accusing him of trying to inflate the danger and then phrasing it
as "diligently capturing every tiny injury ..." is irritating.

To say the least.

Although completely accurate, when all meaningful statistical
comparisons will be made with other activities where such inflated
figures for "serious" injuries are not used.

Questioning the inaccurate use of less than adequate statistics is
not trying to inflate the danger. If you guys want to use statistics to
make a point, you should be able to respond to the question without
resorting to insulting innuendo and hyperbole.

You simply cannot use figures for comparison which are collected in
such different ways and using such widely varying criteria

Of course not. But you can't cherry pick figures that make your
argument either.

You can get some statistics based on those actually showing up
in ERs and then subsequently being admitted. Not sure about where
you are, but skinned knees don't usually get hospital rooms here.

That's why I only cited those 2 stats from the study I linked. I does go
into some more detail about the category of injury, but the severity
mostly has to be inferred. I figure hospital admission is as good as
anything. I'd consider a broken bone a fairly serious injury, but one
that doesn't usually warrant an admission (unless it's your headbone).


But to counter that possibility by claiming someone who takes
5 weeks to recover from an injury is inconsequential makes
your argument sound weak, to say the least.

Per Frank Krygowski:
Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal
dangers? Is it some weird macho thing?

I think part of it might come from the huge variation in local
riding conditions.

I've been to California a couple times and comparing cycling
conditions there to where I live (Southeastern Penna, USA) is on
the order of comparing downtown Mogadishu (SP?) with Amsterdam.

Ok, a little poetic license there... but the diff is so vast that
somebody in the California I've seen just couldn't relate until
they'd been here.
--
PeteCresswell

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 11:46 am, Dan O wrote:

I don't really give a flying fig about numbers (except those like
dropout spacing). I only know that I was just soaking my paronychia
in a Sponge Bob cup of magnesium sulfate while hosing walnut slime off
the driveway with the other hand :-)

Since your injury is statistically insignificant, you can just ignore
it.

Especially in the sense of trying to do anything in the
future to prevent or ameliorate it (like sweeping the
drive ahead of time) as that would just be the same
as fear mongering.

Per Frank Krygowski:
That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's
ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on
the road.

Varying conditions and mile-by-mile judgment calls.

Take Matson Ford road coming out of West Conshocken Penna up the
ridge towards Radnor: Traffic routinely moving at 55-60 mph (at
least 20 mph over the limit), nice straightaway for steering with
the knees while checking email, women wearing hair curlers
rushing home so as not to miss Jerry Springer, very narrow
shoulder mitigated by parking areas/business entrances.

But past the businesses, there's no more mitigation. But there
*is* a nice wide sidewalk - virtually unused AFIK from several
years of passing through.

If somebody is on a bike with fat enough tires to handle the
sidewalk and rides that stretch on the road instead they're being
foolish - and inconsiderate.

If they're used to holding 25-30 mph on 23mm tires, I can't speak
to it.... but for me, noodling along at 12-14 on my 38's it's a
no-brainer.

Anybody who says otherwise is probably an indictment of my
communication skills and just needs to go there and see the
situation firsthand.

Lotta that around here...
--
PeteCresswell

Per AMuzi:
In my experience, sidewalks and 'paths' dump cyclists onto
streets at points unanticipated by other traffic.

+1
--
PeteCresswell

"Peter Cole" wrote in message
...
On 11/20/2010 1:34 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
"Phil W wrote in message
...
Dan considered Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:23:01
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Nov 19, 9:46 am, Duane wrote:
On 11/19/2010 12:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, wrote:

So you're saying because it's too difficult to assess bicycling
accidents that don't result in a death, we should just ignore that
dataset. Hmm, me thinks there's likely a whole range of accidents
the
statisticians don't know or care about. How comforting.

Last night, I read through the article on Portland bike commuter
injuries: Hoffman, Lambert et.al., _Bicycle Commuter Injury
Prevention_, Journal of Trauma, V 69 No 5 Nov 2010.

It does just what James likes: It attempts to inflate the "Danger!"
impression attached to cycling by diligently capturing every tiny
injury, no matter how slight, that any bicyclist in its study
population received in an entire year.

James is saying that using only fatalities and not other cycling
injuries is skewing the data if the data is used to determine whether
cycling is dangerous. Are you disagreeing with that?

Accusing him of trying to inflate the danger and then phrasing it
as "diligently capturing every tiny injury ..." is irritating.

To say the least.

Although completely accurate, when all meaningful statistical
comparisons will be made with other activities where such inflated
figures for "serious" injuries are not used.

Questioning the inaccurate use of less than adequate statistics is
not trying to inflate the danger. If you guys want to use statistics to
make a point, you should be able to respond to the question without
resorting to insulting innuendo and hyperbole.

You simply cannot use figures for comparison which are collected in
such different ways and using such widely varying criteria

Of course not. But you can't cherry pick figures that make your
argument either.

You can get some statistics based on those actually showing up
in ERs and then subsequently being admitted. Not sure about where
you are, but skinned knees don't usually get hospital rooms here.

That's why I only cited those 2 stats from the study I linked. I does go
into some more detail about the category of injury, but the severity
mostly has to be inferred. I figure hospital admission is as good as
anything. I'd consider a broken bone a fairly serious injury, but one that
doesn't usually warrant an admission (unless it's your headbone).

I think that even a trip to the ER could probably constitute serious
injury in most cases. I don't see lots of people here showing up
at the ER with scraped knees. ( Maybe it's our ER wait times g)

Anyway, the range of cycling injuries is probably from very minor to death.
Picking only the top outliers (death) because the bottom outliers
(minor injuries) are insignificant and then claiming statistical proof is a
pretty broken
concept. Both outliers are likely insignificant by definition.

If there aren't enough stats to give you a good result, the only
correct thing is to get better stats.

On 11/18/2010 8:32 PM, kolldata aka AVOGADRO V wrote:
ITS B. SORENSEN !!

http://travel.sulekha.com/india/raja...ant-parade.jpg




http://mirror-us-ga1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/natural-science/_more2003/_more09/elephant-rear-view-and-dung-on-road-bordered-by-bushes-in-Addo-Park-Eastern-Cape-South-Africa-WL.jpg

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

On 11/18/2010 9:17 PM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
"Bill writes:

?...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7network/thread/3f4b7a1f-1dfb-448c-b187-2fdb1f9d1c35&usg=AFQjCNHiF9bIrjQGcVEMb76EFVauGB6Zp A


???

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

On 11/18/2010 8:09 PM, Bill Sornson wrote:
?I plonk you for a reason, Tom. Please stop changing your user name daily.

TYVM!

Hourly?

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

On Nov 20, 2:26*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:

Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal
dangers? * Is it some weird macho thing?

I think part of it might come from the huge variation in local
riding conditions.

I've been to California a couple times and comparing cycling
conditions there to where I live (Southeastern Penna, USA) is on
the order of comparing downtown Mogadishu (SP?) with Amsterdam.

Ok, a little poetic license there... but the diff is so vast that
somebody in the California I've seen just couldn't relate until
they'd been here.

Pete, I've ridden in Southeast Pennsylvania. And south central PA.
And SW PA. And in California. And in many, many other places.

There are some differences in these various places. But in my
experiences, the differences in danger are not as extreme as you seem
to believe.

If you've got data showing SE PA is an extremely dangerous place to
ride, you should post it so we can examine it.

- Frank Krygowski