|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Nov 20, 2:26Â*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Frank Krygowski: Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal dangers? Â* Is it some weird macho thing? I think part of it might come from the huge variation in local riding conditions. I've been to California a couple times and comparing cycling conditions there to where I live (Southeastern Penna, USA) is on the order of comparing downtown Mogadishu (SP?) with Amsterdam. Ok, a little poetic license there... but the diff is so vast that somebody in the California I've seen just couldn't relate until they'd been here. Pete, I've ridden in Southeast Pennsylvania. And south central PA. And SW PA. And in California. And in many, many other places. There are some differences in these various places. But in my experiences, the differences in danger are not as extreme as you seem to believe. If you've got data showing SE PA is an extremely dangerous place to ride, you should post it so we can examine it. It depends on how you ride, I guess. I don't ride like I walk or drive. Riding bike is so much fun! It almost doesn't even matter where, but there's so many great places to ride around here! I don't stick to any stinking *lanes, and can't help but push toward that edge of control at times :-) |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On 11/20/2010 11:47 AM, A. Muzi wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote: In article , Peter Cole wrote: On 11/19/2010 10:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Nov 19, 9:28 pm, wrote: Riding on sidewalks is an excellent way to reduce those "unwanted events." That's been researched many times. AFAIK, there is no study that's ever found sidewalk cycling to be anywhere near as safe as riding on the road. http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downl...ke_Analysis.pd f "Combining the two sources of information, the Commission was able to conclude, for example, that the risk of injury for children riding bicycles in the street was about eight times greater than riding on bicycle paths, and nearly two times greater than riding on sidewalks" For six year olds that seems likely to be reasonable, for adult possibly not. I don't recall ever seeing numbers about that. The Minnesota Department of Health data about head injury fatalities only breaks out "on road" and "off road" "pedalcyclists" without being specific as to what "off road" means (e.g., mountain biking, paved trails, etc.). Adults riding a bike on sidewalks also pose a danger to other sidewalk users, of course. In my experience, sidewalks and 'paths' dump cyclists onto streets at points unanticipated by other traffic. It's one thing to cross an intersection where most participants expect cross traffic. It's quite another 15 feet away between/behind hedges, parked cars and other sight line obstructions. But those accidents at intersections can be counted as riding on the street, to falsely make bicycle facilities look safer than they really are. -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 2:45*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
I think that even a trip to the ER could probably constitute serious injury in most cases. * I don't see lots of people here showing up at the ER with scraped knees. ( Maybe it's our ER wait times g) Maybe. You're in Canada, IIRC; I'm more familiar with U.S. ER data. But check out Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data," Transportation Research Record #1168. According to that, the great majority of cyclist injuries treated in ERs are officially classed as "Minor," or AIS #1 (Abbreviated Injury Scale 1, cuts, scratches, abrasions, etc.) Of cyclists treated in ER: 37% are being treated for minor leg injuries - i.e. Road rash, bruises, scratches. 28% are treated for minor arm injuries - again, things like road rash. 18% for minor head injuries... minor scrapes and bruises above the neck, excluding the face, NOT concussions or worse. 14% are treated for minor face injuries. 13% for minor shoulder injuries. 9% for moderate or worse injuries to the arm. It goes down from there. Anyway, the range of cycling injuries is probably from very minor to death. Picking only the top outliers (death) because the bottom outliers (minor injuries) are insignificant and then claiming statistical proof is a pretty broken concept. *Both outliers are likely insignificant by definition. Yes, death is definitely an outlier event in cycling crashes. Yet it's what lots of people focus on, either assuming, pretending or implying that it's very common. How long has it been since you read about "Darwin" used in association with bike riders? I came across it in some fear-mongering I read yesterday. If there aren't enough stats to give you a good result, the only correct thing is to get better stats. I urge you to do so. I know there are more ER visits in the US from basketball than from cycling, yet basketball gets nowhere near the "Danger! Danger!" warnings that cycling gets. There are far more fatalities from either swimming or from just walking down the street than from cycling, yet cycling gets the bad press. Are those things different where you live? Is cycling portrayed as relatively safe, with swimming, walking, and basketball portrayed as dangerous? Or is cycling _really_ more dangerous where you live? Got data? - Frank Krygowski |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 9:05 pm, Dan wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On Nov 20, 2:26 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote: Per Frank Krygowski: Why are some bicyclists so intent on overstating bicycling's minimal dangers? Is it some weird macho thing? I think part of it might come from the huge variation in local riding conditions. I've been to California a couple times and comparing cycling conditions there to where I live (Southeastern Penna, USA) is on the order of comparing downtown Mogadishu (SP?) with Amsterdam. Ok, a little poetic license there... but the diff is so vast that somebody in the California I've seen just couldn't relate until they'd been here. Pete, I've ridden in Southeast Pennsylvania. And south central PA. And SW PA. And in California. And in many, many other places. There are some differences in these various places. But in my experiences, the differences in danger are not as extreme as you seem to believe. If you've got data showing SE PA is an extremely dangerous place to ride, you should post it so we can examine it. It depends on how you ride, I guess. I don't ride like I walk or drive. Riding bike is so much fun! It almost doesn't even matter where, but there's so many great places to ride around here! I don't stick to any stinking *lanes, and can't help but push toward that edge of control at times :-) Today I was riding with big, bouncy, slick tires out in front of the house, breaking the back wheel loose on the wet walnut gunk. I got it sideways without braking the first try - just load the front wheel, unload the rear, lean over and maybe give the saddle a push - bike goes sideways, inside foot down, push on the outside pedal to scrub speed, but keep the rear tire loose enough so as not to high side. (If you do high side, get away from the bike or it may hurt you.) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 9:11 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:45 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote: I think that even a trip to the ER could probably constitute serious injury in most cases. I don't see lots of people here showing up at the ER with scraped knees. ( Maybe it's our ER wait times g) Maybe. You're in Canada, IIRC; I'm more familiar with U.S. ER data. But check out Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data," Transportation Research Record #1168. According to that, the great majority of cyclist injuries treated in ERs are officially classed as "Minor," or AIS #1 (Abbreviated Injury Scale 1, cuts, scratches, abrasions, etc.) Of cyclists treated in ER: 37% are being treated for minor leg injuries - i.e. Road rash, bruises, scratches. 28% are treated for minor arm injuries - again, things like road rash. 18% for minor head injuries... minor scrapes and bruises above the neck, excluding the face, NOT concussions or worse. 14% are treated for minor face injuries. 13% for minor shoulder injuries. 9% for moderate or worse injuries to the arm. It goes down from there. Anyway, the range of cycling injuries is probably from very minor to death. Picking only the top outliers (death) because the bottom outliers (minor injuries) are insignificant and then claiming statistical proof is a pretty broken concept. Both outliers are likely insignificant by definition. Yes, death is definitely an outlier event in cycling crashes. Yet it's what lots of people focus on, either assuming, pretending or implying that it's very common. How long has it been since you read about "Darwin" used in association with bike riders? I came across it in some fear-mongering I read yesterday. If there aren't enough stats to give you a good result, the only correct thing is to get better stats. I urge you to do so. I know there are more ER visits in the US from basketball than from cycling, yet basketball gets nowhere near the "Danger! Danger!" warnings that cycling gets. Who are you ranting about? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Sherman is doing that thing that gets past kill files
On 11/18/2010 6:09 PM, Bill Sornson wrote:
?I plonk you for a reason, Tom. Please stop changing your user name daily. TYVM! Yeah, I noticed that all of a sudden my kill-file's not working for him any more. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ... On Nov 20, 2:45 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote: I think that even a trip to the ER could probably constitute serious injury in most cases. I don't see lots of people here showing up at the ER with scraped knees. ( Maybe it's our ER wait times g) Maybe. You're in Canada, IIRC; I'm more familiar with U.S. ER data. But check out Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data," Transportation Research Record #1168. According to that, the great majority of cyclist injuries treated in ERs are officially classed as "Minor," or AIS #1 (Abbreviated Injury Scale 1, cuts, scratches, abrasions, etc.) Of cyclists treated in ER: 37% are being treated for minor leg injuries - i.e. Road rash, bruises, scratches. 28% are treated for minor arm injuries - again, things like road rash. 18% for minor head injuries... minor scrapes and bruises above the neck, excluding the face, NOT concussions or worse. 14% are treated for minor face injuries. 13% for minor shoulder injuries. 9% for moderate or worse injuries to the arm. It goes down from there. Yes I'm in Canada and the state of the ERs here, at least in Montreal, make it so that most people only go there when they have no choice. But I've looked at the report that you cite. First, it's from 1988 and refers to data from 1985 and 1986. Secondly, it's dealing with statistics mostly i n North Carolina. There are some results that don't seem at all common. The majority of accidents reported were from the age range of 0-14. (see table 5) Some of the stats seem to argue against some of your points. For example, the majority of accidents on the road are not at intersections or driveways but on the road (see table 3) The report says that 5.8% in 85 and 6.4% in 86 were serious enough to warrant hospital admission. Table 6 shows the breakdown of that. Basically stating that for moderate to serious injuries, 92% were admitted. And table 7 shows the percentage of minor versus serious injuries based on the type of injury. For example, of 98 head injuries (24.3% of accidents), 73 were minor and 25 were moderate to serious. So it looks like, at leat in North Carolina, that more accident victims go to the ER than we see here. Maybe it's, like I said, because of our wait times, or maybe it's because in NC, most of the victims are children, or that most of the accidents don't involve MVs. Even so, you can use the percent that were admitted with serious injuries for your stats. Though I would imagine that broken bones don't get admitted, for example, but the victims of those injuries may consider them serious. Even given that, did you read the conclusion? The report is dealing with reported injuries and arguing against using police stats alone. The conclusion in part talks about the tip of the iceberg and states that the CPSC has identified bicycles as the leading cause of sports or recreational injuries seen in hospital ERs. quote Further research is needed to better defme the nature and magnitude of the bicycle accident problem. Police reported statistics, though frequently cited, represent only a small portion of the bicycle accident "iceberg." Unfortunately, the amount of highway safety dollars allocated to bicycle-related research has reflected a similar under-appreciation of the bicycle accident problem. Yet bicycles are a major source of injury, particularly to young people. The Consumer Product Safety Cornmisssion has identified bicycles as the leading cause of sports or recreational injuries seen in hospital emergency rooms. In children, bicycle crashes are one of the leading if not 1M leading cause of hospitalized head injuries ~). /quote |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ... On Nov 20, 2:45 pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote: snip forgot about this part when replying to the bit about the stats Yes, death is definitely an outlier event in cycling crashes. Yet it's what lots of people focus on, either assuming, pretending or implying that it's very common. How long has it been since you read about "Darwin" used in association with bike riders? I came across it in some fear-mongering I read yesterday. You mean the idea that the survival of the fittest will take care of the cyclists that don't take safety seriously? Or is this all and only about MHL? I've actually never heard anyone refer to death as a reason for not cycling. Maybe I don't get out much. It's usually more like : http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...he%20Defenders People in positions of dealing with the injuries are trying to improve safety. Have any examples where someone in authority is claiming that cycling is deadly? If there aren't enough stats to give you a good result, the only correct thing is to get better stats. I urge you to do so. I prefer to let people who are in the postion to know make their recommendations. I think that it's incumbant on the people using the stats to have valid ones. I know there are more ER visits in the US from basketball than from cycling, yet basketball gets nowhere near the "Danger! Danger!" warnings that cycling gets. There are far more fatalities from either swimming or from just walking down the street than from cycling, yet cycling gets the bad press. Now you've switched back to injuries and not fatalities? Or are you saying that more people die playing basketball than cycling? Even so, I doubt if 1000 Quebecers were treated last year for basketball related injuries. We had this discussion a while back about the relative dangers of hockey as opposed to cycling. You seemed to think that hockey was MUCH more dangerous than cycling. Even to the point where helmets would be required. But have you done a comparison of the deaths by hockey versus cycling? Skiiing? Any other sport related deaths? I think that you'd find that when you use deaths only as a criteria, that you would get different results. So why should it be correct in other cases to use only fatalities? Are those things different where you live? Is cycling portrayed as relatively safe, with swimming, walking, and basketball portrayed as dangerous? Or is cycling _really_ more dangerous where you live? None of those things are protrayed as dangerous. All of those things are protrayed as something that needs to be taken seriously WRT safety. Every year a couple of kids drown. A couple of pedestrians get hit by cars. (never actually heard that basketball was so dangerous - I'll have to go warn my kid who is playing in the street at the moment) So swimmers and pedestrians are urged to use caution. Or in you parlance, "Running about yelling Danger! Danger!) Why does it bother you that when 1000 cyclists are seriously hurt per year that someone would recommend caution? Maybe even investigate methods to reduce this number? The report that you sited seems to do just that with far fewer victims. Got data? No. Not any that I haven't posted before. ~10 deaths per year and ~1000 serious injuries. (not skinned knees or road rashes but hospital admissions - or didn't you read the stats that I posted regarding cycling injuries in Quebec?) |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
SEE IMPERIAL DAM
local noise has Albequerque area as accident central, also touted as
primo usa cycle country |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009
On Nov 20, 9:30 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:11 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip I urge you to do so. I know there are more ER visits in the US from basketball than from cycling, yet basketball gets nowhere near the "Danger! Danger!" warnings that cycling gets. Who are you ranting about? Please take it to them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reduce fatalities or danger rates instead? | Doug[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 10 08:05 AM |
Three cycling fatalities in London last month. | Daniel Barlow | UK | 4 | July 7th 09 12:58 PM |
Child cyclist fatalities in London | Tom Crispin | UK | 13 | October 11th 08 05:12 PM |
Car washes for cyclist fatalities | Bobby | Social Issues | 4 | October 11th 04 07:13 PM |
web-site on road fatalities | cfsmtb | Australia | 4 | April 23rd 04 09:21 AM |