Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:02:15 -0400, Peter Cole
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.


But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.

I think you're missing the other payout. The additional exercise is
expected to reduce things like strokes, cardiac arrest, and pulmonary
embolism. That's a big benefit (skip the life-ending event), with,
I'm guessing, a modest frequency.

The trouble is, nobody expects they're going to throw a blood clot
like that. No, one of the largest people I've worked with tells me
his cholesterol is low, so he doesn't need to lose weight. Personally,
I'm overweight but active, so I'm not at risk, and so on. So don't try
to scare any of us into taking better care of ourselves, because we're
not the next victim. No, sir!

Which leads neatly back into the original post about the difference
between our perception of risk, and the statistical risk we actually
face.

Pat

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 10:45:52 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
wrote:


"AMuzi" wrote in message
...

I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.

The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.

-- Jay Beattie.

I think you're overestimating the amount of thinking that's going on
these days.

Pat

On 8/7/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in the
middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is a
normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in the
middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
after the intersection.

Very good reasons if you look at the source of so many car bike
collisions in big cities. They need to fix the surface if the paint
becomes slippery, but the concept is very good. They've combined
education with the program so vehicles know what to do.

On 8/7/2011 6:42 PM, Peter Cole wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.

Yes, technically you're correct on that, though they mean "suburban
sprawl" when they say "urban sprawl."

A political group I'm involved with got a nastygram from the Sierra Club
when we quoted their opposition to suburban sprawl, agreeing with them
that it made no sense to add housing to the suburbs where there is no
mass transit and not enough schools, while in the urban core there are
empty schools and little-used mass transit.

Yesterday I was on a ride along a multi-use path that is the only
practical way to do commutes from where I live down to the industrial
area where companies like Google have their HQ. To ride there on surface
streets would be maddening because of all the traffic lights, freeway
on/off ramps, and railroad tracks. It could be done but it would be a
longer ride both in time and distance. Much of the route is actually not
very scenic as it threads among freeways, but it is almost a straight
line. Google is expanding and has proposed an overpass for bicycles and
buses over the trail,
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=4469 which I think is
okay (given all the other overpasses/underpasses already in existence),
but that some people oppose.

On 8/7/2011 10:20 PM, Patrick Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:02:15 -0400, Peter Cole
wrote:

On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.


But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.

I think you're missing the other payout. The additional exercise is
expected to reduce things like strokes, cardiac arrest, and pulmonary
embolism. That's a big benefit (skip the life-ending event), with,
I'm guessing, a modest frequency.

No, that's exactly the type of modest benefit I was describing.

Conversely, in my case I was recently diagnosed with a serious cardiac
condition thought to be at least acerbated by my years of vigorous
cycling. Fortunately it was caught in time, and now is being controlled,
but it was life threatening. My cardiologist (a leading expert on the
condition) says his practice is full of cyclists and rowers. I wouldn't
call my case typical, but it's not apparently rare, either.


Which leads neatly back into the original post about the difference
between our perception of risk, and the statistical risk we actually
face.

I think that was my point. Just like the lottery, we tend to misjudge
long odds, for either good or bad consequences.

On 8/7/2011 8:42 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:26 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:29 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:22 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.

I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...]

The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's destination.


Except for those coming and going from the city, the very reason those
highways were built in the first place.

I'm sure that Boston is typical, with the exception that the Atlantic
Ocean limits our Easterly options, in that originally highways developed
in a "hub & spoke" pattern to bring workers to urban jobs from suburban
residences, following and extending streetcar lines. In recent decades,
demographics have changed, with many employers relocating to the suburbs
and many residents relocating to the city. The former phenomenon creates
a lot of suburb to suburb commutes, sometimes served by "beltways"
circling the city, but many such commutes have the shortest path through
the city. That particular commuting pattern defies an easy solution.
Urban residents being understandably intolerant of elevated expressways
blighting their expensive real estate, the only vehicular solution is to
bury them, something Boston recently did partially at a truly horrific
cost. Not a generic solution in the "new economy".

A rational and equitable policy would be to discourage "through
commutes" as they provide no benefit to either urban residents or
workers and they make poor use of precious urban space. Not
surprisingly, that is the exact opposite of your recommendation.

I would be fine with re-routing the controlled access roads to the
periphery or beyond and eliminating many that currently go through the
urban core. The key would be to limit exchanges, since otherwise urban
sprawl develops around them.


I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.

I am suggesting separating intercity and intracity traffic as much as
possible, to prevent the intracity travelers from causing excessive
delays to the intercity travelers.

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

"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 8/7/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in
the
middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is
a
normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in
the
middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
after the intersection.

Very good reasons if you look at the source of so many car bike collisions
in big cities. They need to fix the surface if the paint becomes slippery,
but the concept is very good. They've combined education with the program
so vehicles know what to do.

There are boxes at probably fourteen intersections -- so the likelihood of
these boxes doing much in terms of driver education is questionable. The
first PSU study (and in fact the only one I remember) actually saw no
benefit -- but I guess that has changed. Now they're saving cyclists from
catastrophe. And for Peter, the City has a limited transportation budget
that includes mundane road repairs along with bicycle infrastructure, except
when they hide bull **** infrastructure in our water bills (which is an
entirely different issue), so yes, build a green box and you don't fix a pot
hole. There is only so much money. Riding on broken pavent and weaving
around in traffict to avoid smashing a rim or doing a header is far more
likely problematic to me than infrequent conflicts at stop lights. I ride at
least six days a week in PDX, and I can say with certainty that there are
more pressing problems -- way more.

The good new, based on a story tonight on the national news, is that
Portland is the pin-ball capital of the US.

-- Jay Beattie.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

Peter Cole wrote:

You can say people are irrational, but that irrationality is the product
of millions of years of evolution that enabled every single one of our
ancestors to survive long enough to at least reproduce, all the way back
to the beginnings of life.

During most of our evolution, survival and reproduction have depended
less on rationality, and more on reflex and instinct, with some myth and
politics thrown in.

One tribe attacking and conquering another tribe and spreading their
seed, so to speak, probably didn't happen based on rational evaluation
of odds, risk or anything else. It probably happened because the other
tribe had tasty looking cows, plus some really hot women. 18-year-olds
(i.e. warriors) need little other justification.

For evidence of the modern effects of irrationality, I offer the following:
http://moombahtonic.net/__oneclick_u...egas-night.jpg

The profits that built Las Vegas in a desert came from millions of
customers betting irrationally.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2011 10:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
The good new, based on a story tonight on the national news, is that
Portland is the pin-ball capital of the US.

Also the strip club capital of the US:
http://www.stripcityfilm.com/about.html [1].

[1] One of my HS peeps is involved with the film (as producer, not a
stripper).

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

On 8/7/2011 9:04 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 10:02 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:43 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:36 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:32 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 4:51 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 2:52 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:24 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 6:43 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing
vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]

That only happens a few times a year (at special events)
where I
live in
Iowa.


I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense
urban
areas.

Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?


Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to
live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.

People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a million
people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations
bring.


Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.

Gee, I have alternatives to both of those. *WITHIN* reasonable
cycling
distance.

Contrary to myth, Iowa is *not* a northern version of Mississippi or
other backwards [1] southern state.

[1] Any place that approves of flying the Confederate Flag is *not*
modern.


Now that's a low standard.

So is being more patient and polite than the residents of large cities
on the northeastern US seaboard.


You're hardly an exemplar, are you?

Do not confuse Usenet with real life.


So, your avatar is a New Yorker?

You are seriously full of ****, you know that?

At least I am not flinging around false accusations of racism.

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