Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 11/26/2010 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:06:19 -0500, Duane Hébert
wrote:

On 11/26/2010 12:04 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:38:34 -0500, Duane Hébert
wrote:

On 11/25/2010 12:26 PM, wrote:



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.

That leaves people sputtering wild theories about how people must have
woken up, put out the fires, and not bothered to report them.

You obviously weren't aware of the data.

The wild theory that you talk about is only one example of
something that your data wouldn't include.

I've seen countless studies that show that most residential fire related
deaths are caused by smoke inhalation.

Smoke detectors wake people up before they inhale enough smoke
to kill them. Is that a wild theory?

Dear Duane,

Do you have any studies that contradict the data that I posted that
show that no, smoke detectors do not wake people before they inhale
enough smoke to kill them?

The data shows that the structural fires killed the people at the same
rate in 2002 as they did in 1977--twenty-five years of increasing
smoke detectors made no difference.

I take it that you've abandoned your original wild theory that half a
million fires were simply no longer reported because the sleepers
woke, put them out, and went back to bed.

Do you even read the post you're responding too? I told you that
I have no idea why your stats are wrong. My "wild theory" is
only one example that may explain why that is. Some typical causes
of house fires are cooking fires or smoking in bed. If I'm
in the other room and the grease lights up and I put it out, I won't
call it in. Will you? What if you drag a smoking mattress in the
back yard? Claiming that someone's alternate theory is wild
is a tactic used by another poster here and is no less annoying
when you employ it.


You guys all want a single explanation to refute your broken stats. Try
checking stats compiled by the NFPA or some other reputable agency.

But anyway the cases here are not in your stats because they
didn't die and in most of them the structural damage was prevented:
http://www.nswfb.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=446

Stats from NFPA say smoke detectors can cut deaths in half:

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?c...ookie%5Ftest=1

This one shows that nearly all homes in the US have detectors yet
63% occurred in homes without:
http://nfpaweb2.gvpi.net:8089/assets...reOverview.pdf

When I was working in Boston laying out fire and security systems
one of my customers was Mass General Hospital. There was a project
manager there that wanted to reduce the number of sprinklers and smoke
detectors used based on some other bull**** stats, similar to yours.
Fortunately the city of Boston prefers NFPA requirements and in
most cases exceeds them.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Again, read _Risk_ by John Adams. Or read this chapter:http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

James wrote:
The fella who put this site together http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
apparently was killed by a drunk driver in Sept. 2003 according to
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html


Sadly these things are just part of life now:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3228555.story

http://tinyurl.com/2e64at2

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

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.

That leaves people sputtering wild theories about how people must have
woken up, put out the fires, and not bothered to report them.

You obviously weren't aware of the data.


I had two for almost a week as the building inspector would
not sign off on an unrelated repair without them. At $3.95
each, basically one more fee. I didn't cry when tossing them
in the garbage.

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

On Nov 25, 4:51*pm, SMS wrote:
On 11/25/2010 3:39 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Phil W *wrote:

You've got plentiful evidence from multiple independent sources on one
side, and a vague feeling on the other.

Which do you think it is logical to believe?

Whatever Frank is arguing AGAINST is always a pretty safe bet.

This is true, but simply because there is always a huge amount of
statistically sound data that proves him wrong, while on he has only
junk science and fake data to prove his points. You would never know
when to believe him even if he was telling the truth, it's like the boy
who cried wolf.

It goes way beyond that. It is not just the likelihood that he is
"wrong," but his dishonesty in presenting his arguments, his complete
disregard of basic principles of logic and his utter lack of respect
for others.
He argues like a fifth grader, insults even those who grant him the
patience to continue discussion, twists words and thinks that he has
"won" an argument if he simply outlasts those who have opted out of
his mud-wrestling.

If there were a one cup container with a half cup of water in it he
would argue vehemently that it is factually "half full" and that
anyone who points out it could be considered "half-empty" is wrong,
especially because they cannot "prove" it is not "half full."

His playbook consists almost entirely of logical fallacies, loaded
(rhetorical) questions, subtle and not-so-subtle personal attacks upon
his detractors. He especially loves strawmen, and ignoring relevant
information by arbitrarily assigning "zero" to non-zero values.

Fortunately, others do not seem to be affected by his blindness.

DR

Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/25/2010 5:56 PM, James wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:29 am, Frank wrote:

Again, read _Risk_ by John Adams. Or read this
chapter:http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

The fella who put this site together
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
apparently was killed by a drunk driver in Sept. 2003 according to
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

JS.

Yes, ironically I had a few exchanges with him about safety shortly
before his death. I also read Ed Burke's (cycling doctor) book on
cycling and cardiac performance shortly before his death (heart attack
while riding).

Even with 8M miles between fatalities, if you know a group of 100
cyclists who put in 80K lifetime years of riding, odds are you'll
experience at least one death in the group.

And yet we all must die.

Personally I'd rather die on my bicycle than on a sofa
watching television, which kills just as surely.

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

On Nov 27, 7:37*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

If there were a one cup container with a half cup of water in it he
would argue vehemently that it is factually "half full" and that
anyone who points out it could be considered "half-empty" is wrong,
especially because they cannot "prove" it is not "half full."

Or that the container was twice as big as it needed to be.

JS.

On Nov 26, 12:50 pm, AMuzi wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/25/2010 5:56 PM, James wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:29 am, Frank wrote:

Again, read _Risk_ by John Adams. Or read this
chapter:http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

The fella who put this site together
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
apparently was killed by a drunk driver in Sept. 2003 according to
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

JS.

Yes, ironically I had a few exchanges with him about safety shortly
before his death. I also read Ed Burke's (cycling doctor) book on
cycling and cardiac performance shortly before his death (heart attack
while riding).

Even with 8M miles between fatalities, if you know a group of 100
cyclists who put in 80K lifetime years of riding, odds are you'll
experience at least one death in the group.

And yet we all must die.

Personally I'd rather die on my bicycle than on a sofa
watching television, which kills just as surely.


I got a real messenger gig today! Okay, it was for my wife, but she
needed a little parcel taken to the post office, and I *have* a broken-
in messenger bag.

So out the driveway and down the street (obligatory wheeljies), into
the alley through wet leaves etc. to the PO, where I stood the bike on
its nose stopping to park against the newpaper box. (I stood it on
its nose earlier today pulling into the fire station - hard enough to
knock the stem out of line.)

Since the streets were all wet and I was getting sprayed w/o fenders,
I took gravel alleys back. Approaching the sorta blind intersection
at the middle school, sweep left onto the leafy grassy edge and clamp
the rear brake enough to break the back wheel loose, slide left onto
the street, pick up foot and boogie (obligatory wheeljie through the
next intersection).

On 11/25/2010 5:51 PM, SMS wrote:
On 11/25/2010 3:39 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Phil W wrote:

You've got plentiful evidence from multiple independent sources on one
side, and a vague feeling on the other.

Which do you think it is logical to believe?

Whatever Frank is arguing AGAINST is always a pretty safe bet.

This is true, but simply because there is always a huge amount of
statistically sound data that proves him wrong, while on he has only
junk science and fake data to prove his points. You would never know
when to believe him even if he was telling the truth, it's like the boy
who cried wolf.


Self projection by "The World's Greatest Expert".

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

On 11/26/2010 8:32 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/26/2010 9:06 AM, "Tºm Shermªn™ °_° --" wrote:
On 11/26/2010 7:59 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Furthermore, even though the stats show that most cycling injuries
aren't caused by cars, they seem to show that most cycling fatalities
do involve cars. Yet instead of increasing cycling safety by providing
facilities that separate us from cars and that increase
numbers of cyclists, which by all measures seem to increase safety, the
VC zealots say that even talking about that is crying "Danger! Danger!"
and should be stopped.

Facilities that separate cyclists from cars? That would require grade
separation at intersections, which is a great rarity, due to expense and
ROW needed.

Most cycling "facilities" put cyclists in *greater* danger at
intersections that would occur if they were riding on the street.


I have to pay attention at intersections when I ride on the street.
I don't find much difference when I'm on a path that crosses a street.
I find nearly no difference when I'm in a bike lane to the right of
the traffic.

You need to analyze the situation more then.

Facilities wouldn't remove this danger and I agree, may increase it as
people may not realize the danger. So you put up signs at intersections.
The rest of the time, the cyclist is separated from cars.

Signs will do nothing to help the cyclist being forced into the wrong
place at intersections by the "facility".

And if you prefer statistics, facilities increase cycling numbers.
This is especially true as far as bringing in new cyclists. Google
it, if you like but I've posted several links regarding this in the
city of Montreal.

Statistics also say that facilities increase cycling accidents.

Attempts at using VC to increase cycling numbers don't seem to have the
same success.
http://www.cycling-vision.ca/resourc...ing-lanes.html

Not if the cycling "promoters" go on and on about the "danger" of
cycling in the street.

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

On Nov 26, 2:17 pm, "Tºm Shermªn™ °_° --"
wrote:
On 11/26/2010 8:32 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

On 11/26/2010 9:06 AM, "Tºm Shermªn™ °_° --" wrote:
On 11/26/2010 7:59 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
[...]
Furthermore, even though the stats show that most cycling injuries
aren't caused by cars, they seem to show that most cycling fatalities
do involve cars. Yet instead of increasing cycling safety by providing
facilities that separate us from cars and that increase
numbers of cyclists, which by all measures seem to increase safety, the
VC zealots say that even talking about that is crying "Danger! Danger!"
and should be stopped.

Facilities that separate cyclists from cars? That would require grade
separation at intersections, which is a great rarity, due to expense and
ROW needed.

Most cycling "facilities" put cyclists in *greater* danger at
intersections that would occur if they were riding on the street.

I have to pay attention at intersections when I ride on the street.
I don't find much difference when I'm on a path that crosses a street.
I find nearly no difference when I'm in a bike lane to the right of
the traffic.

You need to analyze the situation more then.

Facilities wouldn't remove this danger and I agree, may increase it as
people may not realize the danger. So you put up signs at intersections..
The rest of the time, the cyclist is separated from cars.

Signs will do nothing to help the cyclist being forced into the wrong
place at intersections by the "facility".

Right. I was supposed to stop at the intersection of that gravel
alley and the street, but by not allowing myself to be "forced" (?)
anywhere, I swept wide, pitched the bike sideways, and boogied on
safely and unimpeded.

snip