More on relative risks and benefits of cycling

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:20:09 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


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

science.

Sure, Duane. Data on millions of miles ridden between fatalities is "junk science." So are the many studies showing benefits of cycling far exceeding its risks. So are danger comparisons between bicycling and other common activities.

But your speculations, without data, on "what about serious injuries?" are fine. So are the anecdotes like "I know somebody who broke their wrist." And of course, the ever-popular "I know it saved my life!!!" tales. IOW, speculations, anecdotes and statements of faith trump data, and "prove" that we should never portray cycling as safe.

You seem to have no idea what _science_ really is.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


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."


Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to
show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly
thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some
people who do. I think you like it because it mirrors your common
argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation
modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for
facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.

But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,
definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is
being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to
try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments
are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you
wanted.

What do you want us to say?

That people who take less risks are less apt to get hurt?

That bicycling is not so dangerous that people should be afraid to
participate? Hello... Earth to Frank...

That bicycling is not terribly dangerous?

"Definition of DANGER: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm,
or loss"

I'm not even going to look up the definition of "terrible", because
I think in any case that's going to be a matter of opinion. IOW,
you're asking us to adopt your opinion.

What do you *not* want to hear us say? (Exact quote, and preferably
context, please.) This should be easy, as you seem to not like *something*
that I said above.


Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here.


Cite?

And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly..


Any tiny doubt? Quite? Frank, are you hearing yourself?

Summary opinion-based discounting, judgmental victim blaming, statistical
obfuscation, and idealistic zealotry will be taken for what it is.


Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!


You erect strawmen, splatter manure on them, then stand back and
emphatically appraise them.

Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


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."


Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to
show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly
thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some
people who do. I think you like it because it mirrors your common
argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation
modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for
facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.

But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,
definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is
being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to
try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments
are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be
accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you
wanted.

What do you want us to say?

That people who take less risks are less apt to get hurt?

That bicycling is not so dangerous that people should be afraid to
participate? Hello... Earth to Frank...

That bicycling is not terribly dangerous?

"Definition of DANGER: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm,
or loss"

I'm not even going to look up the definition of "terrible", because
I think in any case that's going to be a matter of opinion. IOW,
you're asking us to adopt your opinion.

What do you *not* want to hear us say? (Exact quote, and preferably
context, please.) This should be easy, as you seem to not like *something*
that I said above.


Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here.


Cite?

And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.


Any tiny doubt? Quite? Frank, are you hearing yourself?

Summary opinion-based discounting, judgmental victim blaming, statistical
obfuscation, and idealistic zealotry will be taken for what it is.


Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!


You erect strawmen, splatter manure on them, then stand back and
emphatically appraise them.

And calls it science.
--
duane

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

We struggled through hundreds of posts about the virtues of wearing a
helmet again. You must have noticed that these threads always end up in
name calling, endless ' yes it is, no it isn't' discussions and
citing/questioning (mickey mouse) statistics. The last helmet discussion
was just fading away and here you are starting a new bicycle safety thread
as if you liked te be kicked in the ass. So I don't understand why you
complaining. Cycling is as dangerous as one experience it. That is it. I
can't change someone else his experience and you can't either.
I'm just back from a week riding in the Dolomites and told a collegue that
I did 88 km/hr in a descent. He said he found that dangerously fast on 23
mm tires. I didn't had the intention to explain to him that it wasn't
dangerous at all. If he finds that dangerous it IS dangerous for him. End
of discussion. It is all about the fun of riding bike, with helmet/ without
helmet, on a bikepath/ off a bikepath. I don't know about you but I have
fun riding bike even if it was a little chilly ;-)

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wI...EDB60A02FF.JPG
--
Lou

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



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."





Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".




I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to

show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly

thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some

people who do.

Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.

I think you like it because it mirrors your common

argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation

modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for

facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.



But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,

definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show." I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.

Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is

being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to

try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments

are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you

wanted.



What do you want us to say?

Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):

"I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."
"You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."
"If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."
"Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."

The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:22:33 PM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote:

We struggled through hundreds of posts about the virtues of wearing a

helmet again.

Lou, I'm sorry you didn't find that interesting. But the solution is simple. When a thread doesn't interest you, don't read it. It's never mandatory.

You must have noticed that these threads always end up in

name calling, endless ' yes it is, no it isn't' discussions and

citing/questioning (mickey mouse) statistics. The last helmet discussion

was just fading away and here you are starting a new bicycle safety thread

as if you liked te be kicked in the ass.

Actually, the helmet-specific thread had stopped. The thread that made this pertinent was labeled something like "refectors" and had various people saying it _can't_ be true that cycling might be safer than walking.

On the heels of that discussion, up pops a newspaper article by a couple of public health specialists, making some of the same points I'd been making. (Incidentally, I didn't go looking for that article; instead, someone not on this list who knew my interest pointed me to it.)

I'm surprised you feel I shouldn't link to it. If (say) Duane found an article with data proving that riding in Quebec is deadly, do you really think he'd keep it secret? If Scharf found an article proving that sideways flags save hundreds of lives each year, would he fail to post it?

Cycling is as dangerous as one experience it. That is it. I

can't change someone else his experience and you can't either.

Our club's next small safety effort is going to be to re-distribute our handouts explaining why it's dangerous to ride facing traffic, salmon-style. Of course, those salmon riders do that because they think it's too dangerous to ride in the proper direction. Oddly, we do think that a good explanation can change their experience, and for the better. At least, we hope so.

- Frank Krygowski

Per Frank Krygowski:
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."

That one made my "Keepers" file...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:50:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:







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."











Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?



Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".









I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to



show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly



thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some



people who do.



Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.



I think you like it because it mirrors your common



argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation



modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for



facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.







But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,



definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".



I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show." I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.



Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is



being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to



try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments



are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you



wanted.







What do you want us to say?



Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):



"I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."

"You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."

"If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."

"If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."

"The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."

"Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."



The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.

The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved. Breathless arguments about gardening helmets, partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc., etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.

The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!" But with insults and overwrought argument, the immediate response is going to be negative -- expressed most succinctly by Dan O.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/12/2013 2:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:50:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:







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."











Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?



Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".









I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to



show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly



thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some



people who do.



Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.



I think you like it because it mirrors your common



argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation



modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for



facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.







But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,



definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".



I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show." I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.



Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is



being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to



try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments



are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you



wanted.







What do you want us to say?



Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):



"I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."

"You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."

"If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."

"If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."

"The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."

"Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."



The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.

The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved. Breathless arguments about gardening helmets, partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc., etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.

The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!" But with insults and overwrought argument, the immediate response is going to be negative -- expressed most succinctly by Dan O.

I thought lawyers were supposed to be long winded and overly verbose.
That was pretty succinctly put. +1

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



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."





Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".




I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to

show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly

thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some

people who do.

Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.

I think you like it because it mirrors your common

argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation

modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for

facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.



But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,

definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show." I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.

Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is

being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to

try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments

are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you

wanted.



What do you want us to say?

Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):

"I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."
"You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."
"If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."
"Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."

The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.

- Frank Krygowski
Frank - I'm going to say it a little differently. I won't say
"bicycling is dangerous". I WILL say there is a "certain elevated
level of risk" involved in cycling. Manage those risks, and cycling
is relatively safe.

Managing those risks involves identifying the risks, and doing
whatever is necessary to make sure they never get beyond being a
"risk" to you. Pretending the dangers don't exist gets you injured or
killed.

To ME, one of the risks inherent in riding is that I "might" come off
the bike in an unplanned manner, and if I do, the probability of my
head finding something as hard or harder than it is substantial
(contrary to the opinion of many regarding the hardness of my head).
Managing that risk involves being carefull where and how I ride, to
minimise the risk of coming off the bicycle at speed - and minimizing
the chance of serious injury by wearing a "brain bucket". My though
there is "if you haven't got anything to fill it, you don't need it".

After my daughter lost control of her bike in loose sand on a downhill
curve (on concrete - due to a washout) and hit her head on a concrete
retaining wall - severely cracking the helmet but walking away with
only a slightly sore neck for her troubles - I'm a believer in those
"foam hats".