Chances of dying chart

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is
on the list! That means it can kill you!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html

I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in
this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself.

Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the
official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause.
For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical,
impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a
bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends
paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the
time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from
alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy,
they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause
of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still
trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in
the area.

The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was
involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no
mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications
arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the
bicycle.

When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the
statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into
the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for
her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the
flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had
died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza
since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS
condition.

There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death.
Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to
believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the
accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER
attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants
to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting
on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these
reports that offered quite different causes of death.

It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that
data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of
computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better
numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the
sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source.
In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath
which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National
Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific
on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics:
http://www.nsc.org
I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a
report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as
a source:
http://www.nationalacademies.org
Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author
didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the
alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of
collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant,
and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

IIRC it was Samuel Clemmens who said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". Far too often statistics can and are manipulated to say whatever one wants them to.

Cheers.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:27:57 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a
report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as
a source:
http://www.nationalacademies.org

Foundit:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21656/measuring-the-risks-and-causes-of-premature-death-summary-of
Click on "contents" tab.

Oddly, an entire chapter is dedicated to the sources and methodology,
without actually mentioning exactly what sources and methodology was
used. After a quick skim, it looks like data from National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System, National
Death Index, National Longitudinal Mortality Study, Indian Health
Service, Census Bureau, and whatever else I missed. Offhand, I would
call this a survey report, which summarizes data and conclusions
collected elsewhere. Digging deeper would require more time than I
want to burn.

Incidentally, this quote is kinda interesting:
Wang noted that within the United States, inconsistent
coding across states or counties can be a particular problem.
He shared data indicating that correcting the cause-of-death
assignment is necessary in 15 to 32 percent of cases depending
upon the state.
I guess there are still problems with assigning an accurate cause of
death. I think it's much higher than 15 to 32 percent.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 2/13/2016 1:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is
on the list! That means it can kill you!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html

I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in
this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself.

Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the
official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause.
For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical,
impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a
bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends
paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the
time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from
alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy,
they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause
of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still
trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in
the area.

The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was
involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no
mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications
arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the
bicycle.

When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the
statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into
the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for
her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the
flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had
died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza
since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS
condition.

There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death.
Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to
believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the
accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER
attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants
to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting
on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these
reports that offered quite different causes of death.

It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that
data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of
computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better
numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the
sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source.
In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath
which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National
Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific
on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics:
http://www.nsc.org
I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a
report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as
a source:
http://www.nationalacademies.org
Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author
didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the
alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of
collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant,
and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks.




Your nicely done rant reminded me that when I had life
insurance( long ago) I used to quip that if found dead, toss
me into a taxi and then light it; triple indemnity for death
in a common carrier.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:08:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Your nicely done rant reminded me that when I had life
insurance( long ago) I used to quip that if found dead, toss
me into a taxi and then light it; triple indemnity for death
in a common carrier.

I don't have life insurance at this time, but can see the point.

A more common problem is "accidental death" insurance, which only pays
if you died in an accident. The problem is that if you die later in
the hospital, instead of on the roadway, you will have officially died
from "complications resulting from [fill in the blank]" which is
specifically not covered. You have to die from the accident, be
documented as having died from some cause with the word "accident"
included, at the scene of the accident, and not later or elsewhere.
Some states have fixed this problem with legislation. Check with your
insurance agent.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:28:02 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is
on the list! That means it can kill you!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html

[big snip]

Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author
didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the
alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of
collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant,
and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks.

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:45:10 PM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
IIRC it was Samuel Clemmens who said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". Far too often statistics can and are manipulated to say whatever one wants them to.

Incompetence isn't necessarily malicious. Often it is just ignorant.

Andre Jute

AE6KS

during seeking stats for: ride there not here the not assembling data suggested political underpinnings as ride there not here translates to buy there not here.

the Corner's office

On 2/13/2016 2:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:23:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

A chart showing odds of dying from various causes. Warning: Cycling is
on the list! That means it can kill you!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-...185256144.html

I think I've done this rant before. I just don't recall if it was in
this newsgroup. Forgive me for repeating myself.

Such statistics are very inaccurate and misleading. For example, the
official cause of death often has nothing to do with the actual cause.
For example, in situations where a proper autopsy is impractical,
impossible, or just plain too expensive, the cause of death can be a
bad guess or a politically correct replacement. One of my friends
paid his way through college by working in the Chicago morgue. At the
time (late 1930's) there were quite a few drunks that died from
alcohol related maladies. Rather than perform an expensive autopsy,
they were listed as their heart having stopped as the standard cause
of death. Many years later, public health investigators were still
trying to analyze the sudden epidemic of cardiovascular fatalities in
the area.

The same can happen with bicycle fatalities. If a vehicle was
involved, it could be listed as a vehicular related accident with no
mention of the bicycle. Even worse, it could be from "complications
arising from severe trauma" which lists neither the vehicle or the
bicycle.

When there are multiple causes, it's often difficult to handle in the
statistics. For example, a near terminal AIDS victim was dragged into
the ER by her minister in the hope that they could do something for
her. To get her admitted, they told the triage nurse that she had the
flu. After about an hour of arguing, someone noticed that she had
died. I later checked and the cause of death was listed as influenza
since there had been no attempt to diagnose or treat the AIDS
condition.

There are also multiple reports that attempt to list a cause of death.
Most offer room for only a single cause. So, which are you going to
believe? The report by the police officer at the scene of the
accident? The EMT? The transporting ambulance attendant? The ER
attending physician? The coroners autopsy? Or what the family wants
to see on the death certificate to avoid complications with collecting
on an accidental death insurance policy? I've seen a few of these
reports that offered quite different causes of death.

It's still difficult to get accurate statistics, but I must say that
data collection has been radically improved since the introduction of
computers into medicine. It's fairly easy to recognize the better
numbers. The report or sensationalist article will include the
sources of the data which can be traced back to the original source.
In this case, the Yahoo article's data came from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath
which offered as its sources "National Safety Council; National
Academies, The Economist". Swell. I couldn't find anything specific
on the NSC web pile, which doesn't seem to deal with such statistics:
http://www.nsc.org
I'm sure that one of the national academies might produce such a
report, but I couldn't find it. It's like citing the US Government as
a source:
http://www.nationalacademies.org
Using The Economist as its own source doesn't count when the author
didn't even bother to cite a specific article. In other words, the
alleged data has no traceable sources, no documented method of
collecting, no analysis if the results are statistically significant,
and comes from untraceable or difficult to trace sources. No thanks.

Rant noted. However, for a person interested in gauging, however
roughly, the risk of bicycling vs. other activities or conditions, I
think the aspects I questioned are much more pertinent. Dividing annual
deaths by the total population (instead of the population of
participants, the hours of activity, etc.) is not very useful...

Except, perhaps, in deciding how to allocate public money. If the
fatality count due to cycling is so low as to generate the article's
quoted low risk of cycling, it might be used to justify spending little
public money to lower it further. IOW, there are bigger public health
fish to fry.

Incidentally, I doubt officials have great difficulty deciding whether a
particular fatality was due to bicycling or not, as in the realm of what
you're discussing. For one thing, I do some work with a person who
diligently tracks down all the data there is on every bike fatality in
our state. It's very unusual for him to disagree about whether the
death was, in fact, generated by riding a bicycle. (Some news reports
have sometimes called a traffic fatality a "bicyclist death" when the
person was actually a pedestrian pushing a bike; but that's rare, and
the NHTSA seems able to sort those out just fine.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Cyclist's legal positions well below just equality to vehicular traffic is the area of social dwelling....legally untouchable.

No statistics finagling required

You believed otherwise ? As what ? Fanatic, zealot ?