A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Relative risk



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 18th 12, 09:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default Relative risk

On Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:02:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:



http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...ans-young-male



The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.

How about that?



- Frank Krygowski


Frank, in the SF Bay Area here those who seem most likely to be killed or injured are not traffic cyclists but semi-racers on week-end type rides or "training" rides since they're so concentrated on beating some other weekend warrior that they make HUGE mistakes such as riding in the opposing lanes around blind turns and other absolute stupidities like that. Another form of cycling deaths I've been finding is that modern bikes and wheels are built so lightly that they are failing and dumping riders on their heads at high rates of speed. When my state-of-the-art carbon fiber fork broke and dumped me on my head I was luckily only doing 5 mph or so and yet it took two years to find the proper medication and another year for me to return mostly to normal.

In the last year as I've been returning to cycling several people in the area have been killed in just such manners. Apparently most have failures of things like these crazy 12 spoke wheels and the like. Going down a hill at 45 mph and having a wheel folding up would not be my idea of fun and so I use steel frames and forks and standard 32 spoke wheels.

Another thing is that we cannot get any good information on the cause and effect of these increasing numbers of bicycle accidents. Here in the bay area and especially on the San Francisco peninsula the increasing numbers of riders since I was injured is staggering. I rode an organized Century and there were many times that number in "training groups" on the same roads. We certainly need better information to reduce injuries but can't get it.
Ads
  #12  
Old December 18th 12, 10:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Relative risk

On Dec 18, 3:39*pm, wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:02:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:


http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...


The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.


How about that?


- Frank Krygowski


Frank, in the SF Bay Area here those who seem most likely to be killed or injured are not traffic cyclists but semi-racers on week-end type rides or "training" rides since they're so concentrated on beating some other weekend warrior that they make HUGE mistakes such as riding in the opposing lanes around blind turns and other absolute stupidities like that. Another form of cycling deaths I've been finding is that modern bikes and wheels are built so lightly that they are failing and dumping riders on their heads at high rates of speed. When my state-of-the-art carbon fiber fork broke and dumped me on my head I was luckily only doing 5 mph or so and yet it took two years to find the proper medication and another year for me to return mostly to normal.

In the last year as I've been returning to cycling several people in the area have been killed in just such manners. Apparently most have failures of things like these crazy 12 spoke wheels and the like. Going down a hill at 45 mph and having a wheel folding up would not be my idea of fun and so I use steel frames and forks and standard 32 spoke wheels.

Another thing is that we cannot get any good information on the cause and effect of these increasing numbers of bicycle accidents. Here in the bay area and especially on the San Francisco peninsula the increasing numbers of riders since I was injured is staggering. I rode an organized Century and there were many times that number in "training groups" on the same roads. We certainly need better information to reduce injuries but can't get it.


Certainly, some types of riding are more risky than other types of
riding. The same is probably true of some types of equipment.

Speaking of information: Here in Ohio, we have a rather prominent
cycling lawyer who is attempting to get accurate details on each and
every bike fatality in the state. There are only about 15 of them per
year, but it's still a pretty big project, involving paying for and
poring over police reports, which aren't necessarily completely
accurate.

But again, there are only about 15 cyclist deaths per year in Ohio.
There are nearly 100 pedestrian deaths. Nationally, there are about
700 cyclist deaths, vs. over 4000 pedestrian deaths, and tens of
thousands of motorist deaths.

- Frank Krygowski
  #13  
Old December 19th 12, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default Relative risk

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:59:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:39*pm, wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:02:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
New paper out of Britain:


http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...


The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.


How about that?


- Frank Krygowski


Frank, in the SF Bay Area here those who seem most likely to be killed or injured are not traffic cyclists but semi-racers on week-end type rides or "training" rides since they're so concentrated on beating some other weekend warrior that they make HUGE mistakes such as riding in the opposing lanes around blind turns and other absolute stupidities like that. Another form of cycling deaths I've been finding is that modern bikes and wheels are built so lightly that they are failing and dumping riders on their heads at high rates of speed. When my state-of-the-art carbon fiber fork broke and dumped me on my head I was luckily only doing 5 mph or so and yet it took two years to find the proper medication and another year for me to return mostly to normal.

In the last year as I've been returning to cycling several people in the area have been killed in just such manners. Apparently most have failures of things like these crazy 12 spoke wheels and the like. Going down a hill at 45 mph and having a wheel folding up would not be my idea of fun and so I use steel frames and forks and standard 32 spoke wheels.

Another thing is that we cannot get any good information on the cause and effect of these increasing numbers of bicycle accidents. Here in the bay area and especially on the San Francisco peninsula the increasing numbers of riders since I was injured is staggering. I rode an organized Century and there were many times that number in "training groups" on the same roads. We certainly need better information to reduce injuries but can't get it.


Certainly, some types of riding are more risky than other types of
riding. The same is probably true of some types of equipment.

Speaking of information: Here in Ohio, we have a rather prominent
cycling lawyer who is attempting to get accurate details on each and
every bike fatality in the state. There are only about 15 of them per
year, but it's still a pretty big project, involving paying for and
poring over police reports, which aren't necessarily completely
accurate.

But again, there are only about 15 cyclist deaths per year in Ohio.
There are nearly 100 pedestrian deaths. Nationally, there are about
700 cyclist deaths, vs. over 4000 pedestrian deaths, and tens of
thousands of motorist deaths.

- Frank Krygowski


One of the problems is the way the data is presented. 100 pedestrian
deaths out of what? a population of 11,544,951 (as of Jul 2011) versus
15 out of what.

100 deaths in a population of 11,544,951 is a very small number while
15 of (how many) may be larger.

By the way I had a look at Steve Magas' site in hunting for total Ohio
cyclists and couldn't find the number there either :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.
  #14  
Old December 20th 12, 09:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,673
Default Relative risk

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:44:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:59:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 18, 3:39*pm, wrote:


On Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:02:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


New paper out of Britain:




http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling....




The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.




How about that?




- Frank Krygowski




Frank, in the SF Bay Area here those who seem most likely to be killed or injured are not traffic cyclists but semi-racers on week-end type rides or "training" rides since they're so concentrated on beating some other weekend warrior that they make HUGE mistakes such as riding in the opposing lanes around blind turns and other absolute stupidities like that. Another form of cycling deaths I've been finding is that modern bikes and wheels are built so lightly that they are failing and dumping riders on their heads at high rates of speed. When my state-of-the-art carbon fiber fork broke and dumped me on my head I was luckily only doing 5 mph or so and yet it took two years to find the proper medication and another year for me to return mostly to normal.




In the last year as I've been returning to cycling several people in the area have been killed in just such manners. Apparently most have failures of things like these crazy 12 spoke wheels and the like. Going down a hill at 45 mph and having a wheel folding up would not be my idea of fun and so I use steel frames and forks and standard 32 spoke wheels.




Another thing is that we cannot get any good information on the cause and effect of these increasing numbers of bicycle accidents. Here in the bay area and especially on the San Francisco peninsula the increasing numbers of riders since I was injured is staggering. I rode an organized Century and there were many times that number in "training groups" on the same roads.. We certainly need better information to reduce injuries but can't get it.




Certainly, some types of riding are more risky than other types of


riding. The same is probably true of some types of equipment.




Speaking of information: Here in Ohio, we have a rather prominent


cycling lawyer who is attempting to get accurate details on each and


every bike fatality in the state. There are only about 15 of them per


year, but it's still a pretty big project, involving paying for and


poring over police reports, which aren't necessarily completely


accurate.




But again, there are only about 15 cyclist deaths per year in Ohio.


There are nearly 100 pedestrian deaths. Nationally, there are about


700 cyclist deaths, vs. over 4000 pedestrian deaths, and tens of


thousands of motorist deaths.




- Frank Krygowski




One of the problems is the way the data is presented. 100 pedestrian

deaths out of what? a population of 11,544,951 (as of Jul 2011) versus

15 out of what.



100 deaths in a population of 11,544,951 is a very small number while

15 of (how many) may be larger.



By the way I had a look at Steve Magas' site in hunting for total Ohio

cyclists and couldn't find the number there either :-)


Yep. You've touched on two common problems with cycling data: First, it's sparse and a bit unreliable, at least in the U.S. Second, as a result, that makes denominators shaky (as in "deaths per mile traveled").

However, I take some hope from that situation. Why is the data sparse? Partly because there's no horrible problem of bicycle safety. American society sends research money to solve problems. If there's no problem (e.g. very few bad outcomes from cycling) there's no flood of research money.

Still, there are researchers who choose to dig for and evaluate data as well as they can. And even if their papers' abstracts claim "Omigosh, we've got to do something!!" (i.e. "someone's got to send more money so I can publish another paper"), the numbers routinely prove that cycling is quite safe and beneficial.

Here's some data: http://ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

- Frank Krygowski
  #15  
Old December 21st 12, 03:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default Relative risk

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:01:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:44:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:59:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 18, 3:39*pm, wrote:


On Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:02:56 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


New paper out of Britain:




http://road.cc/content/news/71717-go...-risks-cycling...



The researchers claim the dangers of bicycling have been overstated.




How about that?




- Frank Krygowski




Frank, in the SF Bay Area here those who seem most likely to be killed or injured are not traffic cyclists but semi-racers on week-end type rides or "training" rides since they're so concentrated on beating some other weekend warrior that they make HUGE mistakes such as riding in the opposing lanes around blind turns and other absolute stupidities like that. Another form of cycling deaths I've been finding is that modern bikes and wheels are built so lightly that they are failing and dumping riders on their heads at high rates of speed. When my state-of-the-art carbon fiber fork broke and dumped me on my head I was luckily only doing 5 mph or so and yet it took two years to find the proper medication and another year for me to return mostly to normal.




In the last year as I've been returning to cycling several people in the area have been killed in just such manners. Apparently most have failures of things like these crazy 12 spoke wheels and the like. Going down a hill at 45 mph and having a wheel folding up would not be my idea of fun and so I use steel frames and forks and standard 32 spoke wheels.




Another thing is that we cannot get any good information on the cause and effect of these increasing numbers of bicycle accidents. Here in the bay area and especially on the San Francisco peninsula the increasing numbers of riders since I was injured is staggering. I rode an organized Century and there were many times that number in "training groups" on the same roads. We certainly need better information to reduce injuries but can't get it.




Certainly, some types of riding are more risky than other types of


riding. The same is probably true of some types of equipment.




Speaking of information: Here in Ohio, we have a rather prominent


cycling lawyer who is attempting to get accurate details on each and


every bike fatality in the state. There are only about 15 of them per


year, but it's still a pretty big project, involving paying for and


poring over police reports, which aren't necessarily completely


accurate.




But again, there are only about 15 cyclist deaths per year in Ohio.


There are nearly 100 pedestrian deaths. Nationally, there are about


700 cyclist deaths, vs. over 4000 pedestrian deaths, and tens of


thousands of motorist deaths.




- Frank Krygowski




One of the problems is the way the data is presented. 100 pedestrian

deaths out of what? a population of 11,544,951 (as of Jul 2011) versus

15 out of what.



100 deaths in a population of 11,544,951 is a very small number while

15 of (how many) may be larger.



By the way I had a look at Steve Magas' site in hunting for total Ohio

cyclists and couldn't find the number there either :-)


Yep. You've touched on two common problems with cycling data: First, it's sparse and a bit unreliable, at least in the U.S. Second, as a result, that makes denominators shaky (as in "deaths per mile traveled").


I suspect that, at least from what I see, that much of the statistical
data we see is of the same nature and that Mark Twain's (was it)
comment that "figure don't lie but liars figure" is far more common
than we think.

Example: Both the New York and the British studies depended on less
then complete data and perhaps complete data is not available. For
example using numbers that visited the emergency clinic isn't accurate
evidence of anything except how many visited the clinic.

However, I take some hope from that situation. Why is the data sparse? Partly because there's no horrible problem of bicycle safety. American society sends research money to solve problems. If there's no problem (e.g. very few bad outcomes from cycling) there's no flood of research money.


To be frank :-), I believe it is very much a tempest in a teapot.
There is a certain level of danger for everything that we do - lying
in bed results in loss of muscle tone - and one either accepts the
risk or not.

For example, in spite of all the statistics I never knew anyone who
was killed riding a bicycle, so are the statistics applicable, or even
of interest, if they are based on figures gathered in the largest city
in the U.S. and I'm a guy that lives in a small New England town?

Or does my risk cycling in Bangkok (where I now reside) where nearly
every driver has ridden, or someone in his/her family rides, a
bicycle, compare with Los Angeles where only a tiny percentage of
drivers are acquainted with bicycles.

Still, there are researchers who choose to dig for and evaluate data as well as they can. And even if their papers' abstracts claim "Omigosh, we've got to do something!!" (i.e. "someone's got to send more money so I can publish another paper"), the numbers routinely prove that cycling is quite safe and beneficial.

And either data varies considerably depending on geography or there is
a vast difference in the way the data, and apparently the way it is
presented.

See:
http://sweatscience.com/relative-inj...-motorcycling/
and
http://cyclehelmets.org/1026.html
The latter appears to attempt to correlate a number of reports all
based on different criteria, i.e., fatality rates per participant
(UK), Risk by time (US), Deaths per year (GB), etc.

For 20 years I worked for a company in Indonesia that did considerable
work consulting on projects for the U.N, World Bank, USAID and ADB and
there were innumerable studies prepared for these entities. Strangely
enough the studies all seemed to show evidence in favor of whatever
scheme was in favor at the time and the raw data we gathered
invariably demonstrated the validity of our studies.

It tends to make a fellow a bit cynical about statistics :-)

Here's some data: http://ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

- Frank Krygowski


--
Cheers,
John B.
 




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
TdF 'relative' time gaps [email protected] Racing 1 July 24th 07 03:39 PM
Relative soup UK 2 May 11th 05 09:50 AM
Is she Tammy T's Relative? B. Lafferty Racing 24 August 26th 04 02:59 PM
It's all relative... JJuggle Unicycling 3 June 29th 04 09:08 PM
Difficulty is all relative Sofa Unicycling 4 April 13th 04 11:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.


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.