Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Nov 24, 1:59*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/23/2010 9:50 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:

Keep you head turning too. People see "heads move". Its a fact.

keeps your neck from getting sore as well.

Put my neck out turning too fast one day. Big crunch and immediate
neck pain. Had to see the chiro. He said it had been out for years
and I just tipped it over the edge. A few visits later and the neck
feels better than ever!

Unclogging your nose with (what we politically incorrectly call) an
"abo blow", or using the bushmans handkerchief towards the passing
traffic also helps to keep them away!

JS.

On Nov 23, 12:46*am, RobertH wrote:
On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Walking doesn't cause deaths, so much, it's the getting hit by cars
while walking that does it.

True for bicycling, as well. *Bicycling doesn't cause deaths, so much,
it's the getting hit by cars. *90% of bike fatalities are caused by
crashes with cars.

What is your source for that number?

Sorry, I'd have to dig to find the sources. But it is "sources,"
plural. I've read it many times in many places.

According to WISQARS 2007 figures, 578 out of 820 total cyclist
fatalities involved collision with a motor vehicle, or ~70%.

See below.

My understanding is that WISQARS is based on reports from a sample of
hospitals across the US, and that national figures in its search
queries are extrapolated from that sample. *My understanding of FARS
data is that it's based on actual counts of reported incidents. *Am I
correct? *If that's the situation, I'd tend to go with the actual
counts.

WISQARS injury numbers are from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System which gives an _estimate_ derived from their
sample of about 100 ERs around the country.

Right. Which is the reason its injury numbers have such a wide spread
on their 95% confidence interval. They are estimates, and in many
cases, somewhat crude estimates.

WISQARS fatality numbers are, according to the site, a hard count from
death certificates. As such, I highly doubt they are mistakenly adding
fatalities which didn't occur. It seems much more likely that FARS is
ommitting them. FARS fatality numbers I believe are from police
reports, ultimately, which is probably why they are always less than
the WISQARS number -- some cyclist fatalities aren't in the police
reports, or aren't classified as such in police reports.

Except what you say isn't true! I just checked NHTSA (i.e. FARS)
fatality numbers vs. WISQARS numbers for 2008. From what I see,
sometimes one is larger, sometimes the other.

Motor vehicle occupant fatalities by WISQARS = 16560. Total of
Drivers + Passengers by NHTSA = 30433, way higher. Am I doing
something wrong?

Motorcyclists by WISQARS = 4889 by NHTSA = 5174 so NHTSA is
higher.

Pedestrians via Motor Vehicle by WISQARS = 4820. NHTSA = 4699.
(WISQARS also has 1138 "other" pedestrian fatalities. What the heck
are those?? Falling down? Medical problems?)

And WISQARS has 578 MV traffic bike fatalities, vs. NHTSA 701.
WISQARS also has 242 "other" bike fatalities, which is what you
focused on above. But as with pedestrians - really, what caused
those? We'd need to get detailed ICD-10 codes for those to make any
sense of them.

I'm wondering if WISQARS does code things like heart attacks or
strokes while riding or walking as a bike or ped fatality. If so, I
think it's a mistake in communication. Those events would likely
occur soon no matter what the person was doing. (I had another friend
who died of a massive stroke in his sleep, despite going to bed while
feeling excellent - "bounding up the stairs," according to those
around him.)

If you're trying to study transportation-related fatalities only, then
neither the WISQARS nor the FARS fatality count is useful data. There
is too much slop. The best course of action may be to soldier on as if
the FARS number provides an accurate count of cyclist deaths and hope
nobody notices. Sounds official: "FARS!"

There certainly does seem to be too much slop.

But to put things in context: In a country where there are over
600,000 annual fatalities due to heart problems - may of which could
have been prevented by moderate exercise - there's not much sense in
quibbling about whether there are 600 or 800 bike fatalities, and even
less sense in saying "Bicycling is dangerous!"

Using WISQARS number of 578 MV-related pedalcylist deaths (2007) and
FARS count of 710 fatalities gives us 82% MV-related fatalities. So
maybe we should split the difference at about 75%. I don't know off
hand where FARS gives information on which fatalities were MV-related
to compare with the WISQARS 578 number.

Nor do I. I'd like to subtract out any medical causes not directly
linked to the activity. Although it's not at all common, AFAIK, both
pedestrians and cyclists occasionally trip or skid, then fall and hit
their heads and die. Those are caused by the activity, and I'd leave
those in. But if a person passes out due to (say) blood sugar
imbalance and dies, I'd omit that. Ditto for strokes and heart
attacks.

Still, my main points remain:

1) Bicycling does not seem to be a particularly dangerous activity
when compared with other common activities. Its danger is much less
than the general public seems to believe, and its benefits easily
outweigh its risks;

2) People - especially cyclists - should not be portraying cycling as
unusually dangerous. Especially, nonsense like "drivers are out to
kill you" misleads those who do cycle, and dissuades others who might
cycle.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 23, 1:15 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


2) People - especially cyclists - should not be portraying cycling as
unusually dangerous. Especially, nonsense like "drivers are out to
kill you" misleads those who do cycle, and dissuades others who might
cycle.


ct=1.0

Frank Krygowski writes:



snip


2) People - especially cyclists - should not be portraying cycling as
unusually dangerous. Especially, nonsense like "drivers are out to
kill you" misleads those who do cycle, and dissuades others who might
cycle.


People should not let others decide their own personal risks for them -
not at all - not ever.

On Nov 23, 8:21*am, Peter Cole wrote:


Rather than saying "cycling is dangerous" -- which is meaningless -- I'd
say that cycling is more dangerous than it needs to be. Some reduction
in that danger may be achieved by cyclist training and behavior, some
not. The same can be said for motoring and walking.

All that also applies to climbing ladders, riding horses, descending
stairs, cooking, swimming, boating, working with power tools, etc.

I've also had conversations (real life, or online) with brain injury
specialists who have admitted that they get almost no cyclists as
patients.

Not surprising, given the relatively tiny amount of cycling done in the US.

However, some of them started off believing that biking really was a
very significant source of serious or fatal head injury! Despite
their profession, they were deluded by the "Danger! Danger!" hype.
One of those conversations (during a bike ride) was very interesting
to me, since I literally got to watch the woman come to realize that
what she believed and preached was seriously wrong. All it took was
for me to ask in detail about her patients, and the sources of their
brain injuries.

She was the one that admitted that she'd only ever had one cyclist as
a patient, and he was a racer who had worn a helmet when he incurred
his injury.

- Frank Krygowski

On Nov 23, 9:16*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/22/2010 7:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, Duane H *wrote:
... you just want to say that cycling
is less dangerous than walking. *Are you surprised that people
question that?

I'm not at all surprised, because whenever someone says cycling is
_not_ dangerous, it tends to draw arguments and statements that say
things like "Of _course_ riding a bike is dangerous!" *I'm not the
only author who has felt the need to write articles disputing the
"Danger! Danger!" hype.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you're surprised that
people question that cycling is less dangerous than walking?

Um... Duane, you need to re-read. When I say "I'm not at all
surprised," that answers the question "Are you surprised?" See? You
need to keep better track of what's being said.

You said, essentially, that the data was no good because it was too
old. *Yet you provided no data that was more current. *It's easy to
stand at the sidelines and criticize those doing the work, Duane.
It's harder to actually do the work. *Why not try?

Well the old data that you pointed to was done by people trying
to do the work. *They just didn't agree with you. *The reason that
I won't "do the work" is because I don't think that it's useful.

Sounds like you need to drop out of the discussion, then. You don't
want to do any study, you don't think it's useful, and you're
certainly not adding any value!

You said that in your state (I think) there was 1 death and
were 20 injuries in the last two years. *In Quebec the numbers
are significantly higher. *Why should Quebec care what
happens in Ohio?

Actually, you're not even keeping track of data that's been given.
The numbers I gave were for the local metropolitan area, not for the
entire state. However, those numbers were sufficient to prove to
those studying them that bicycling injuries are NOT a significant
public health problem (and note, "significant" is always determined
by comparison with other problems). Those data, and a comparison with
benefits of cycling, convinced those people to work to promotion of
cycling, not discouragement of it. And the promotion they chose was
education.

I don't agree with your tactic of simply saying that
there's no problem so don't do anything.

You're definitely losing track of things! That's not what I said.

People here already think that cycling is, at least somewhat dangerous.
Remember the stats here that there are generally ~1000 cyclists per year
injured and ~10 killed. *All of the deaths and most of the
injuries make the news.

Right! 10 killed in your area per year, so cycling is "dangerous."
In the US as a whole, we get maybe 700 cyclists killed in a year, so
people say it's "dangerous."

OTOH, we get about 3000 dying from drowning, yet people don't think of
swimming as being as dangerous as biking! When was the last time you
heard about a mandatory water wing law?

We get maybe 16,000 people dying from falls, maybe 14,000 from
poisoning, maybe 4000 from walking down the street, tens of thousands
inside cars, and over 600,000 from heart attacks. By any rational
comparison, bicycling shouldn't even make the "dangerous" list.

ERs and police here regularly have cycling safety drives where they
hand out helmets for free.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...7/mtl_tour_du_...

Yes, I know they do. We had a local police department do that this
summer, complete with newspaper coverage. The head line was about
Bicycle Safety. But not one word in the 500 word article was about
anything but wearing a helmet.

You seem to take that as proof that I'm wrong, that helmets are
wonderful. I take it as proof that the cops had never looked into the
issue, certainly never looked at long term data, and were as
bamboozled as anyone else about what's really important, or about how
safe cycling is.

The question is, how do we get cops to hand out water wings instead,
to stem the terrible tragedy of drownings? That would make at least
as much sense. Because if bicycling is "dangerous," swimming is one
hell of a lot more "dangerous"!

And if only ONE swimmer can be saved... wring hands here

- Frank Krygowski

On 11/23/2010 4:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:16 am, Duane wrote:
On 11/22/2010 7:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, Duane H wrote:
... you just want to say that cycling
is less dangerous than walking. Are you surprised that people
question that?

I'm not at all surprised, because whenever someone says cycling is
_not_ dangerous, it tends to draw arguments and statements that say
things like "Of _course_ riding a bike is dangerous!" I'm not the
only author who has felt the need to write articles disputing the
"Danger! Danger!" hype.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you're surprised that
people question that cycling is less dangerous than walking?

Um... Duane, you need to re-read. When I say "I'm not at all
surprised," that answers the question "Are you surprised?" See? You
need to keep better track of what's being said.

I read what you said. You said that you weren't surprised because
whenever someone says cycling is dangerous...
I asked specifically about cycling being less dangerous than walking.
You answered about cycling being dangerous in general. My point is
that no one is going to think that cycling is less dangerous
than walking.

You said, essentially, that the data was no good because it was too
old. Yet you provided no data that was more current. It's easy to
stand at the sidelines and criticize those doing the work, Duane.
It's harder to actually do the work. Why not try?

Well the old data that you pointed to was done by people trying
to do the work. They just didn't agree with you. The reason that
I won't "do the work" is because I don't think that it's useful.

Sounds like you need to drop out of the discussion, then. You don't
want to do any study, you don't think it's useful, and you're
certainly not adding any value!

Then don't respond.

On Nov 23, 1:57 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/23/2010 4:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 23, 9:16 am, Duane H wrote:
On 11/22/2010 7:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, Duane H wrote:
... you just want to say that cycling
is less dangerous than walking. Are you surprised that people
question that?

I'm not at all surprised, because whenever someone says cycling is
_not_ dangerous, it tends to draw arguments and statements that say
things like "Of _course_ riding a bike is dangerous!" I'm not the
only author who has felt the need to write articles disputing the
"Danger! Danger!" hype.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you're surprised that
people question that cycling is less dangerous than walking?

Um... Duane, you need to re-read. When I say "I'm not at all
surprised," that answers the question "Are you surprised?" See? You
need to keep better track of what's being said.

I read what you said. You said that you weren't surprised because
whenever someone says cycling is dangerous...
I asked specifically about cycling being less dangerous than walking.
You answered about cycling being dangerous in general. My point is
that no one is going to think that cycling is less dangerous
than walking.

You said, essentially, that the data was no good because it was too
old. Yet you provided no data that was more current. It's easy to
stand at the sidelines and criticize those doing the work, Duane.
It's harder to actually do the work. Why not try?

Well the old data that you pointed to was done by people trying
to do the work. They just didn't agree with you. The reason that
I won't "do the work" is because I don't think that it's useful.

Sounds like you need to drop out of the discussion, then. You don't
want to do any study, you don't think it's useful, and you're
certainly not adding any value!

Then don't respond.

Works for me - wheeee! :-)

Duane Hébert writes:

On 11/23/2010 4:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:16 am, Duane wrote:
On 11/22/2010 7:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, Duane H wrote:
... you just want to say that cycling
is less dangerous than walking. Are you surprised that people
question that?

I'm not at all surprised, because whenever someone says cycling is
_not_ dangerous, it tends to draw arguments and statements that say
things like "Of _course_ riding a bike is dangerous!" I'm not the
only author who has felt the need to write articles disputing the
"Danger! Danger!" hype.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if you're surprised that
people question that cycling is less dangerous than walking?

Um... Duane, you need to re-read. When I say "I'm not at all
surprised," that answers the question "Are you surprised?" See? You
need to keep better track of what's being said.

I read what you said. You said that you weren't surprised because
whenever someone says cycling is dangerous...
I asked specifically about cycling being less dangerous than walking.
You answered about cycling being dangerous in general. My point is
that no one is going to think that cycling is less dangerous
than walking.

You said, essentially, that the data was no good because it was too
old. Yet you provided no data that was more current. It's easy to
stand at the sidelines and criticize those doing the work, Duane.
It's harder to actually do the work. Why not try?

Well the old data that you pointed to was done by people trying
to do the work. They just didn't agree with you. The reason that
I won't "do the work" is because I don't think that it's useful.

Sounds like you need to drop out of the discussion, then. You don't
want to do any study, you don't think it's useful, and you're
certainly not adding any value!

Then don't respond.


I'm finding myself way more relaxed at the ol' rbt than back when Frank
was responding to me ;-)

On Nov 24, 8:46*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Right! *10 killed in your area per year, so cycling is "dangerous."
In the US as a whole, we get maybe 700 cyclists killed in a year, so
people say it's "dangerous."

OTOH, we get about 3000 dying from drowning, yet people don't think of
swimming as being as dangerous as biking! *When was the last time you
heard about a mandatory water wing law?

How many per hour of activity?
How many hours of swimming versus cycling?

Here we have mandatory life jacket laws in boats and backyard swimming
pools must fenced to prevent youngsters gaining access unsupervised.

Apparently we get about 35 drownings per annum in this state, however
there's no mention of hours of swimming or numbers of swimmers, etc.
The statistics are incomparable to cycling deaths.

As well, in this state there have been considerable efforts to reduce
the number of drownings.
http://www.lifesavingvictoria.com.au..._%28RGB%29.pdf

The rest of your statistics are likely as meaningless and
incomparable.

Because if bicycling is "dangerous," swimming is one
hell of a lot more "dangerous"!

Your assumptions and useless statistics make this statement
meaningless.

JS.