|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Cole wrote: I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to curb. That's a big advantage of a bike lane, you go to the front rather than sit stuck behind a line of cars. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling safer, more pleasant and more convenient. All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on low speed roads would be a big help. Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians, but it might cost something to clear the bodies from the street. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
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. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Phil W Lee writes:
Peter Cole considered Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:02:15 -0400 the perfect time to write: 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. But every car off the road is one less spin of the wheel, roll of the dice, or turn of the card. So increasing cycling at the expense of motoring reduces the number destined for a big loss, at the same time as increasing the number of small benefits. And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:
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. Happens every day on my commute home from work... the long lines, that is - not the queuing up behind, because - not being some kind of kook playing their sorry traffic game - I can *always* bypass them one way or another (really ****es them off sometimes, too). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
SMS wrote: [...] All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on low speed roads would be a big help. Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians, but it might cost something to clear the bodies from the street. http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Common%20Crow/amcrow2.jpg http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Turkey%20Vulture/turkey-vulture-scS.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Maggots.jpg/220px-Maggots.jpg -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1] or motorcycle. E.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:
On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the road. How is that useless? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:
On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. I'm all about that, too. (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them. In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk. It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge. If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all. I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1] or motorcycle. Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles, even that was sometimes sans helmet. E.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/. Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes: On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote: [...] And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them. I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an $8/gallon tax would be a start. I'm all about that, too. Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get into accidents in the first place? (Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept of the risk.) And the uselessness of bicycle helmets. My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them. Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability to prevent serious brain trauma is well established. In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk. It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge. If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all. I think this would offer much more benefit for those people: http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/. Active safety passive safety. I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell 2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1] or motorcycle. Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles, even that was sometimes sans helmet. I like having serious abrasion protection. E.g.http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/. Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted. With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated. Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston slap", smoke, or exhaust smell. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Study to investigate if cyclists are putting their health at risk----- one for Geoff. | Rob | Australia | 1 | March 29th 11 12:20 PM |
More dangerous drivers who put cyclists seriously at risk. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 9 | October 22nd 10 09:16 AM |
Dangerous, dangerous furniture | F. Kurgan Gringioni | Racing | 0 | April 30th 10 06:27 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. | Richard B | General | 18 | August 6th 06 03:21 AM |