More on relative risks and benefits of cycling

[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]

Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html

Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.



- Frank Krygowski

FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that bicycling is less dangerous.

Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles and in cars.

Cheers

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html


So first, throw out any "sporty" bike riding.

"So when deciding what mode of transportation to use, it is important to consider the death rate... "

No thanks. Guess I'll just go on disregarding the "death rate" at my own peril.

"Using distance rather than trips shows that cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable road users."

More vulnerable than people in padded steel cages? Who would have guessed?



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.


The public knows how beneficial cycling already is. The problem is their perception that it's not safe. She's addressing that with an "approach modelled on countries that have achieved higher rates of active travel".

Also, lowering motor vehicle speeds would not just reduce injuries all the way around, but go a long way toward making bicyclists and pedestrians feel more comfortable *and* do their respective things.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this
turns up as a duplicate.]

Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html

Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated
facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to
educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.

- Frank Krygowski

Nobody is interested Frank. Geez, go ride bike instead of wearing us out
with all this drivel again and again and again and again....
--
Lou

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:07:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]







Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:







http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html







Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.







- Frank Krygowski



FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that bicycling is less dangerous.



Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles and in cars.


Did you catch the byline:

"Opinion: Constructive discussion needed"

:-)

On 7/10/2013 3:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.



- Frank Krygowski

FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that bicycling is less dangerous.

Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles and in cars.

Cheers



Notice how it states the proposition and then claims that this includes
lots of MTB riders and suggest that we compare to something else that
shows what the author wants to say? Sound familiar? That's how you can
make stats say whatever you want. At least one way...

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:10:52 PM UTC+1, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this

turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated

facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to

educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.



- Frank Krygowski



Nobody is interested Frank. Geez, go ride bike instead of wearing us out

with all this drivel again and again and again and again....

--

Lou

Krygowski is the last man standing in the wasteland he's singlehandedly turned RBT into.

Andre Jute

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.

Per mile or kilometer traveled is a highly inaccurate way of comparing risk.. It should be done on a per-time basis. And what is a "trip"? When I go on a weekend ride of 70 miles, is that a "trip" -- and when I walk to the burrito cart about 300 meters from office, is that also a "trip"? Seems like significant disparity in "trips."

Also, the statistic is for auto involved injuries. Ordinary falls account for many bicycling injuries -- Jobst, for example, broke his hip and femur in separate falls while riding. I've broken ribs, separated a shoulder and messed up my face. My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved. The pedestrian number should be adjusted as well. The auto number already includes single vehicle accidents.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/07/13 05:39, Duane wrote:
On 7/10/2013 3:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html

FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different
statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set
statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that
bicycling is less dangerous.

Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles
and in cars.

Cheers



Notice how it states the proposition and then claims that this includes
lots of MTB riders and suggest that we compare to something else that
shows what the author wants to say? Sound familiar? That's how you can
make stats say whatever you want. At least one way...

Yeah, I was shocked. I can never ride my MTB again for fear of a TBI,
though I've crashed a few times and not suffered one yet while out
MTBing. Oh well.

--
JS

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this
turns up as a duplicate.]



Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ris...074/story.html



Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated
facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to
educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.

Per mile or kilometer traveled is a highly inaccurate way of comparing
risk. It should be done on a per-time basis. And what is a "trip"? When
I go on a weekend ride of 70 miles, is that a "trip" -- and when I walk
to the burrito cart about 300 meters from office, is that also a "trip"?
Seems like significant disparity in "trips."

Also, the statistic is for auto involved injuries. Ordinary falls account
for many bicycling injuries -- Jobst, for example, broke his hip and
femur in separate falls while riding. I've broken ribs, separated a
shoulder and messed up my face. My wife broke her arm, two friends broke
wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar
bones with no cars involved. The pedestrian number should be adjusted as
well. The auto number already includes single vehicle accidents.

-- Jay Beattie.


Well I think that if you take serious injuries instead of just fatalities
and divide the number of injuries by the participants you'll get a good
idea of the risk. But if you don't use disparate qualifiers like number of
trips or miles traveled then you can manipulate the results.

Everyone here thinks cycling os relatively safe but most of us have been or
know someone who has been injured at it. Why not try to make it safer?
This schtick about comparing it to pedestrian accidents is just
misdirection.

The real elephant in the room here is that the worst cycling accidents
involve motor vehicles and these guys are telling you to ride in traffic,
don't wear helmets and stay away from facilities. It seems to me that if
the AHZ/VC guys actually got their way cycling actually would become
dangerous.

I'm with Lou. Go ride a bike and stop slinging this crap around. No one
is interested.

--
duane