Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:32:37 -0800 (PST), James
wrote:

On Nov 18, 5:52*pm, wrote:

Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .

"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"

Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

Dead is worse than a serious injury. Similarly, a serious injury is
worse than a minor injury, so we focus on serious injuries and
overlook minor injuries, and minor injuries are worse than near
misses, and so on.

Dead is also easier to agree on and count than a serious injury. Most
bicyclists die on the spot and make the newspapers. (Lingering cases
like a friend's uncle, who broke his neck when a front fender failed
and took about two years to die of complications, are rare.)

In contrast, what's a "serious" injury? The usual definition is
anything that leads to a full day or more in the hospital, which
misses some rather horrifying injuries that modern medicine
successfully treats and discharges with surprising speed.

A rider can suffer a "serious" injury and take a day or two to admit
that his back, knee, ribs, wrist, or face hurts so much that he needs
to see a doctor. After an office visit, it may then take a few more
days to schedule surgery, which may lead to a day or more in the
hospital. It's iffy whether this will be counted as a bicycle injury.

***

Incidentally, medical advances skew historical data. Modern death
rates are much lower than they "ought" to be because victims now
survive what used to be fatal wounds--we now survive leg, chest,
belly, and head wounds that routinely killed people in accidents,
wars, and crimes.

For example, a greater proportion of assault victims used to die,
turning into homicide statistics. You died of a festering leg wound,
of peritonitis after a belly wound, of complications after chest and
head wounds. You didn't get the modern emergency treatment that
routinely saves lives.

In 1903, Officer Slater accidentally shot himself in the leg while
trying to stop a drunken pharmacist who had just shot Slater's
partner. Slater died the next day of his leg wound, something that
would be astonishing with modern medicine.

This trend toward survival is reflected in military statistics, which
show modern casualties surviving wounds that routinely killed soldiers
within living memory.

And it suggests that bicyclists were more likely to die from
accidents in the past. That is, many posters can probably remember
times when a bicycle accident was more likely to be fatal just because
treatment was nowhere near as good.

Thoreau is a good reminder of how much we take for granted. His
brother John nicked himself shaving in 1842 and died of tetanus.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Nov 19, 4:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:32*am, James wrote:



Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?

Another reason is that counts of fatalities and counts of serious
injuries tend to move in parallel.

However when there is a small sample of deaths there will likely be a
much larger sample of serious injuries, hence better data
statistically speaking.

JS

On Nov 19, 5:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:32:37 -0800 (PST), James

wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:52 pm, wrote:

Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .

"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"

Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

Dead is worse than a serious injury. Similarly, a serious injury is
worse than a minor injury, so we focus on serious injuries and
overlook minor injuries, and minor injuries are worse than near
misses, and so on.

Dead is also easier to agree on and count than a serious injury. Most
bicyclists die on the spot and make the newspapers. (Lingering cases
like a friend's uncle, who broke his neck when a front fender failed
and took about two years to die of complications, are rare.)

In contrast, what's a "serious" injury? The usual definition is
anything that leads to a full day or more in the hospital, which
misses some rather horrifying injuries that modern medicine
successfully treats and discharges with surprising speed.

A rider can suffer a "serious" injury and take a day or two to admit
that his back, knee, ribs, wrist, or face hurts so much that he needs
to see a doctor. After an office visit, it may then take a few more
days to schedule surgery, which may lead to a day or more in the
hospital. It's iffy whether this will be counted as a bicycle injury.

***

Incidentally, medical advances skew historical data. Modern death
rates are much lower than they "ought" to be because victims now
survive what used to be fatal wounds--we now survive leg, chest,
belly, and head wounds that routinely killed people in accidents,
wars, and crimes.

For example, a greater proportion of assault victims used to die,
turning into homicide statistics. You died of a festering leg wound,
of peritonitis after a belly wound, of complications after chest and
head wounds. You didn't get the modern emergency treatment that
routinely saves lives.

In 1903, Officer Slater accidentally shot himself in the leg while
trying to stop a drunken pharmacist who had just shot Slater's
partner. Slater died the next day of his leg wound, something that
would be astonishing with modern medicine.

This trend toward survival is reflected in military statistics, which
show modern casualties surviving wounds that routinely killed soldiers
within living memory.

And it suggests that bicyclists were more likely to die from
accidents in the past. That is, many posters can probably remember
times when a bicycle accident was more likely to be fatal just because
treatment was nowhere near as good.

Thoreau is a good reminder of how much we take for granted. His
brother John nicked himself shaving in 1842 and died of tetanus.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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.

Regards,
James.

On Nov 18, 10:56*pm, Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanDELETE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

yawn

With nothing more useful to add.

JS.

On Nov 18, 5:23*pm, James wrote:
On Nov 19, 4:11*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Nov 18, 6:32*am, James wrote:

Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?
Another reason is that counts of fatalities and counts of serious
injuries tend to move in parallel.

However when there is a small sample of deaths there will likely be a
much larger sample of serious injuries, hence better data
statistically speaking.

Perhaps, if you can find the data at all.

Another problem - related to what I've already mentioned - is that
even if a definition is agreed upon, there is a spectrum of "serious"
injury. A broken collarbone would probably meet most definitions of
"serious," but it's in a completely different league than, say, a
collapsed lung or an amputated leg.

I just skimmed the paper Jay linked. I see that their definition of
"serious traumatic event" was "any medical treatment sought." So if a
person falls and skins his knee and he (or his mommie) says "I want
the doctor to clean that," it becomes a "serious" injury. If he
cleans it himself, it's not serious. That indicates the data isn't
necessarily better.

- Frank Krygowski

Tºm Shermªn °_° ""twshermanDELETE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote:
yawn

James wrote:
With nothing more useful to add.

Saved the trouble of checking Mr Sherman's face book page to
check his mood at that moment.

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:30:18 -0800 (PST), James
wrote:

On Nov 19, 5:47*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:32:37 -0800 (PST), James

wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:52 pm, wrote:

Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .

"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"

Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

Dead is worse than a serious injury. Similarly, a serious injury is
worse than a minor injury, so we focus on serious injuries and
overlook minor injuries, and minor injuries are worse than near
misses, and so on.

Dead is also easier to agree on and count than a serious injury. Most
bicyclists die on the spot and make the newspapers. (Lingering cases
like a friend's uncle, who broke his neck when a front fender failed
and took about two years to die of complications, are rare.)

In contrast, what's a "serious" injury? The usual definition is
anything that leads to a full day or more in the hospital, which
misses some rather horrifying injuries that modern medicine
successfully treats and discharges with surprising speed.

A rider can suffer a "serious" injury and take a day or two to admit
that his back, knee, ribs, wrist, or face hurts so much that he needs
to see a doctor. After an office visit, it may then take a few more
days to schedule surgery, which may lead to a day or more in the
hospital. It's iffy whether this will be counted as a bicycle injury.

***

Incidentally, medical advances skew historical data. Modern death
rates are much lower than they "ought" to be because victims now
survive what used to be fatal wounds--we now survive leg, chest,
belly, and head wounds that routinely killed people in accidents,
wars, and crimes.

For example, a greater proportion of assault victims used to die,
turning into homicide statistics. You died of a festering leg wound,
of peritonitis after a belly wound, of complications after chest and
head wounds. You didn't get the modern emergency treatment that
routinely saves lives.

In 1903, Officer Slater accidentally shot himself in the leg while
trying to stop a drunken pharmacist who had just shot Slater's
partner. Slater died the next day of his leg wound, something that
would be astonishing with modern medicine.

This trend toward survival is reflected in military statistics, which
show modern casualties surviving wounds that routinely killed soldiers
within living memory.

And it suggests that bicyclists were more likely to die from
accidents in the past. That is, many posters can probably remember
times when a bicycle accident was more likely to be fatal just because
treatment was nowhere near as good.

Thoreau is a good reminder of how much we take for granted. His
brother John nicked himself shaving in 1842 and died of tetanus.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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.

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

No, you're saying that.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Nov 19, 12:22*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:30:18 -0800 (PST), James



wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:47 am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:32:37 -0800 (PST), James

wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:52 pm, wrote:

Speaking of not riding while drunk . . .

"One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol"

Dear Carl,

Why is it that we tend to focus on the death statistics and overlook
the serious injuries?

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

Dead is worse than a serious injury. Similarly, a serious injury is
worse than a minor injury, so we focus on serious injuries and
overlook minor injuries, and minor injuries are worse than near
misses, and so on.

Dead is also easier to agree on and count than a serious injury. Most
bicyclists die on the spot and make the newspapers. (Lingering cases
like a friend's uncle, who broke his neck when a front fender failed
and took about two years to die of complications, are rare.)

In contrast, what's a "serious" injury? The usual definition is
anything that leads to a full day or more in the hospital, which
misses some rather horrifying injuries that modern medicine
successfully treats and discharges with surprising speed.

A rider can suffer a "serious" injury and take a day or two to admit
that his back, knee, ribs, wrist, or face hurts so much that he needs
to see a doctor. After an office visit, it may then take a few more
days to schedule surgery, which may lead to a day or more in the
hospital. It's iffy whether this will be counted as a bicycle injury.

***

Incidentally, medical advances skew historical data. Modern death
rates are much lower than they "ought" to be because victims now
survive what used to be fatal wounds--we now survive leg, chest,
belly, and head wounds that routinely killed people in accidents,
wars, and crimes.

For example, a greater proportion of assault victims used to die,
turning into homicide statistics. You died of a festering leg wound,
of peritonitis after a belly wound, of complications after chest and
head wounds. You didn't get the modern emergency treatment that
routinely saves lives.

In 1903, Officer Slater accidentally shot himself in the leg while
trying to stop a drunken pharmacist who had just shot Slater's
partner. Slater died the next day of his leg wound, something that
would be astonishing with modern medicine.

This trend toward survival is reflected in military statistics, which
show modern casualties surviving wounds that routinely killed soldiers
within living memory.

And it suggests that bicyclists were more likely to die from
accidents in the past. That is, many posters can probably remember
times when a bicycle accident was more likely to be fatal just because
treatment was nowhere near as good.

Thoreau is a good reminder of how much we take for granted. His
brother John nicked himself shaving in 1842 and died of tetanus.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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.

Regards,
James.

Dear James,

No, you're saying that.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

It is the net result.

Cheers,

James.

?I plonk you for a reason, Tom. Please stop changing your user name daily.

TYVM!

ITS B. SORENSEN !!

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