More on relative risks and benefits of cycling

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:54:55 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


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.

Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."

Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.

Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!

- Frank Krygowski

On 07-10-2013 15:07, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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.

And in statistics and journalism.

--
Wes Groleau

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
come by their ignorance the hard way.
— Kurt Vonnegut

On 07-10-2013 18:54, Duane wrote:
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,

None of my cycling accidents involved motor vehicles.

The worst one involved a teenager (me) going downhill at over forty mile
per hour in the mountains on a curvy gravel road. With no shoes,
no shirt, and short pants.

No broken bones, though.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:25:48 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:54:55 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:





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.



Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."



Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.



Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!



- Frank Krygowski

Some just felt compelled to point out that the statistics were used to show that bicycling was MORE dangerous and then LESS dangerous than other activities. As Samuel Clemens is often credited with stating, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Cheerio old chap.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:25:48 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:54:55 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:





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.



Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded
immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost
all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is
safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."



Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot
more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.



Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!



- Frank Krygowski

Some just felt compelled to point out that the statistics were used to
show that bicycling was MORE dangerous and then LESS dangerous than other
activities. As Samuel Clemens is often credited with stating, "There are
lies, damn lies and statistics".

Cheerio old chap.

Right. Not much interest in the subject, just fatigue with the endless junk
science.

--
duane

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 07-10-2013 18:54, Duane wrote:
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,

None of my cycling accidents involved motor vehicles.

The worst one involved a teenager (me) going downhill at over forty mile
per hour in the mountains on a curvy gravel road. With no shoes,
no shirt, and short pants.

No broken bones, though.

Neither have mine knock on wood. My worst was a separated shoulder after
hitting a curb that I didn't see in the driving rain. But the worst ones
that I read about, especially involving fatalities are usually involving
cars c


--
duane

we'll get dwon on accident potential...next year.

Passed muh first cyclist riding in an isolated bike lane to left of off lane into a boat ramp/hotel area with 2 lanes to bike lane left running up to toll booth for bridge.

A long bike lane and a long sight distance for vehicles.

A difficult, counter intuitive decision to proceed at a 35mph posted limit passing the cyclist who was not wear colors nor back light.

Having hit suicidal deer, my decision process saw he cyclist turn right into the radiator as 1 of 10.

Not good.

But who am I right ?

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:54:03 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
we'll get dwon on accident potential...next year.



Passed muh first cyclist riding in an isolated bike lane to left of off lane into a boat ramp/hotel area with 2 lanes to bike lane left running up to toll booth for bridge.



A long bike lane and a long sight distance for vehicles.



A difficult, counter intuitive decision to proceed at a 35mph posted limit passing the cyclist who was not wear colors nor back light.



Having hit suicidal deer, my decision process saw he cyclist turn right into the radiator as 1 of 10.



Not good.



But who am I right ?

......


ideal conclusion to the discussion is Frank getting the city bus.

Per Frank Krygowski:
Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.

Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!

I think of it this way: if somebody thinks that something they are
doing has danger associated with it, they're careful - and in much less
danger.

OTOH, if somebody does something that has inerrant dangers in it yet
thinks they are perfectly safe, they are less safe.

I see this locally with a particular freeway "merge or die" on-ramp.
You'd think there would be accidents on an almost daily basis but in 20
years of daily commuting, I never saw a single accident on that ramp.

One explanation is that it really isn't very dangerous.... but the one
that makes the most sense to me is that people perceive the potential
danger and act accordingly.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:12:40 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:

Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.



Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!



I think of it this way: if somebody thinks that something they are

doing has danger associated with it, they're careful - and in much less

danger.



OTOH, if somebody does something that has inerrant dangers in it yet

thinks they are perfectly safe, they are less safe.



I see this locally with a particular freeway "merge or die" on-ramp.

You'd think there would be accidents on an almost daily basis but in 20

years of daily commuting, I never saw a single accident on that ramp.



One explanation is that it really isn't very dangerous.... but the one

that makes the most sense to me is that people perceive the potential

danger and act accordingly.


I think that makes sense. It's what Monderman is famous for preaching. And it's a corrolary of the risk compensation hypothesis, which at its essence states that people do adjust their behavior based on their perception of risk.

As I've said, the problem isn't so much risk compensation, as risk OVER-compensation, caused by mistaken perceptions. So in terms of the issue at hand, people have had about 25 years of propaganda that bicycling is extremely dangerous. They believe it, and so choose not to ride a bike, thus losing the benefits of cycling, which greatly exceed it's minimal risks.

On the other side of the coin, we have people who are told that special hats and various weird facilities almost completely remove the purportedly great risks of cycling. The result is know-nothings blasting along in door zone bike lanes, or passing turning trucks at the curb.

Accurate education (through many available channels) seems a much more logical way to promote cycling, instead of the current method: "Pretend it's really dangerous, and pretend that only special hats and weird facilities everywhere will make it tremendously safe."

- Frank Krygowski