|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:27:51 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010..* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. My experience shows nothing of the kind. You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom. Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car. In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way. These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities. I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few. Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists. I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation. Andre Jute Numerate With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Cheers Nope. Those figures are official, and my results are achieved by simple division according to principles long agreed by the vast majority of bicyclists (that your health is worth some extra risk). The amazing thing isn't my numbers, but that a clown like Krygowski was so incompetent with statistics as to ***overstate*** the danger of cycling for so long until I came and did the job right. Everyone, including Krygowski (without thanks, of course), now uses my numbers, in the vast number of cases without attribution, often without knowing who calculated those numbers. You can read my whole article, dated 12 June 2010, at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/THE$20CASE$20FOR$20A$20MANDATORY$20CYCLE$20HELMET$ 20LAW$20(IN$20THE$20UNITED$20STATES$20OF$20AMERICA )$20by$20Andre$20Jute%7Csort:date/rec.bicycles.tech/ow2rIVqZ_DU/pdrY0lrdze8J If you want to discuss the numbers, or the conclusions from them, rather than fling thirdhand sneers from Samuel Langhorne Clemens, I'd be delighted. Andre Jute Good statistics are like a Bach cantata, incomparably more than the sum of their numbers -- Andre Jute, Chairman's valedictory address, MASA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is cycling dangerous? | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 20 | March 17th 14 09:43 PM |
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 7 | April 6th 12 08:06 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend | Anton Berlin | Racing | 4 | June 25th 09 08:58 PM |
Cycling is dangerous | Garry Jones | General | 375 | November 21st 03 05:52 PM |