A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1091  
Old January 30th 05, 05:42 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:14:15 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Are you really so daft, immature, and dishonest as to not know
what plagerism is and why respectable people don't do it?

^^^^^^^^^

I suspect he can even spell it. I can.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ads
  #1095  
Old January 30th 05, 09:27 PM
Benjamin Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just zis Guy wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:25:44 -0800, Benjamin Lewis
wrote in message :

I'm at a loss why anyone should care that if you cycle more, you're at a
greater yearly risk of sustaining a cycling related injury. Not only is
this completely obvious, it's not interesting or useful for anything.


Obvious? You think?

Risk per what? per mile?


Yearly risk is what I said.

I'd be amazed if that was not substantially lower for a high-mileage
cyclist. Ditto per hour. Per year? It would depend on how many miles
of low risk-per-mile cycling the high mileage cyclist does compared to
the low-mileage cyclist and their higher risk-per-mile cycling. Last
time I checked there was no binary split between high and low mileage
cyclists, so it would depend very much on where exactly you draw the line
between low and high mileage.


I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
  #1098  
Old January 31st 05, 12:28 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Benjamin Lewis wrote:

I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against

yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.


And speaking of _relative_ risk, I happened across another paper
comparing risk of various activities. This one is "Injury Rates from
Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting, Outdoor Bicycling, and Aerobics" by
Powell et. al., in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1998, vol
30, pp 1246-9.

This paper reported the results of a very simple poll. They called
some 5000 people, asking questions regarding their participation in the
activities listed in the title. They asked which of those activities
they had participated in during the past 30 days, and whether they had
been injured doing the activity in the past 30 days.

Results? First, 20% of those polled at random had ridden a bike in the
past 30 days. And, believe it or not, a lower percentage of cyclists
had injured themselves than any other group.

Here's a little more detail:

% participating % of participants
injured
Aerobics or aerobic dance 14.5 1.4

Gardening or yard work 70.6 1.6

Outdoor bicycle riding 20.2 0.9

Walking for exercise 73.0 1.4

Weightlifting 20.9 2.4


Read that again. By this measure, bicycling is safer than gardening!
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

  #1099  
Old January 31st 05, 08:23 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Just zis Guy wrote:


I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
hourly or per mile risk would go down.


If you ploted that for the *same cyclist*, assuming reasonably low
accident rates, the slope would be 1. Risk goes down with increased
skill. You can find some highly skilled, low mileage cyclists
(typically people who have ridden for years, but due to work/personal
constraints or some medical condition can't ride as much any more.)
Generally, though, skills improve the more you ride, but you can
increase your mileage far easier than you can increase your skill
level.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 




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
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski Social Issues 1716 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Another doctor questions helmet research JFJones General 80 August 16th 04 10:44 AM
First Helmet : jury is out. Walter Mitty General 125 June 26th 04 02:00 AM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 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.