Chances of dying chart

On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 4:30:47 AM UTC, JoeRiel wrote of Krygowski's risible chart:

Curious that death by automobile isn't on the list.

If death by automobile were on the list, it should be weighted/arranged by extent of exposure, say by hours on the bike/in the car in every year or by mileage covered*, otherwise it won't make much sense because you'll be comparing apples with oranges. Whatsisface, Daniels is right: Krygowski's is a TIME Magazine graph, totally useless, probably a troll.

Andre Jute
*I already made such a comparison and posted it here, years ago. Here's a piece I first published on RBT in April 2010:

IS CYCLING SAFE?
by Andre Jute
Cycling statistics are thrown about by passionate advocates for this
or against the other with gay abandon for meaning and sense, so I
decided to conduct my own investigation and get at the facts.
Statistics is the art of spiraling in on enough sets of numbers in
broad agreement to make an informed decision. Decimals are a luxury
for ivory tower lurkers who wouldn't survive a day in the real world;
all that is required is a set of mutually reinforcing numbers tending
the same way.

Safety numbers do not stand in isolation. They are always in relation
to something else, which sets a baseline. In bicycle safety, the
comparison is with fatalities in automobile travel. It is not
necessarily the best comparison. For instance, if I were killed on the
road, my family would find it inconvenient but I would no longer care;
I would find being maimed or hurt on the road much more inconvenient,
but I have no good numbers for serious injury short of fatality. We
have to compare cycling to what we have, which is automobile
fatalities.

So one's entire attitude to bicycle safety depends on whether one
considers automobile travel safe enough. Most of us do. The unspoken
qualification is "in the light of its benefits." Bicycling must be
given the same benefit of weighing not just danger but net gain.

***

A cyclist is 2.9 times more likely to be killed on any journey than
someone riding in a car.
( http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7man...PIpuchertq.pdf )

A cyclist is 11 times more likely to be killed per mile of travel than
someone riding in a car.
(ibid)

We know that cars travel faster than cyclists, and that people who
ride in cars travel further (14,400 miles for Americans according to
the DoT 2000/2001 transport census) than almost all bicyclists. So a
comparison per mile is not as indicative as first seems; in practice
it will be swamped by other factors. A more meaningfully direct
comparison is the risk per hour on the bicycle. We know from
experience that cars, depending on circumstances, travel 3 or 4 or 5
times as fast as bicycles. So we can calculate that:

A cyclist is roughly 2 or 3 or 4 times (11 divided by 3, 4, and 5,
and remember what I said about decimals) as likely to be killed per
hour on his bike as someone riding in an automobile. That accords well
with a number we already have, that a cyclist is 2.9 times as likely
to be killed per journey as a motorist.

All these numbers, including the outlyer of 11 times more cycling
fatalities per journey for cyclists than motorists, accord well with
the knowledge that most travel fatalities happen within three miles of
home, and the additional fact that most bicycles journeys are of less
than two miles.

We've now arrived at where cycling carries somewhere around three
times the risk of dying compared to motoring, with a fifty per cent
margin each way. It's extremely encouraging for a first approximation
to be so close, because not all cyclists ride under the same
circumstances or in the same way.

***

Let's check the numbers we have against known statistics. In the US,
about 700 cyclists and around 40,000 motorised travellers will become
traffic fatalities this year.

Nobody knows precisely how many cyclists there are but BRAIN reported
for the National Sporting Goods Association in 2008 that 44.7m rode
six or more times a year, of which 25m rode more than 24 times a year.
It is this 25m more or less regular cyclists we want to work with;
they very likely largely overlap the 24m who reported to the BTS in
2000-2001 that they cycled at least once a week. (
http://www.bts.gov/publications/high...table_a01.html
)

That works out to about 1 chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be
killed on the road this year.

Nobody knows precisely how many people travel in internal combustion
vehicles either. But about 200m Americans have driving licenses, and
only 8 per cent of households don't have a car available; most of
those presumably travel by bus. We can probably safely say that around
390m Americans account for the 40,000 passenger casualties every year.
(That probably overstates the numbers who don't travel at all and take
trains, but it makes minuscule differences.)

That works out to about 1 chance in 9750 that an automobile traveller
will be killed on the road this year.

Eh? One chance in 36,000 that a cyclist will be killed v. one chance
in 9750 that a motorist will be killed this year. Can cycling really
be near enough four times safer than motoring? Even when we have
already decided that per trip and per hour cycling is about three
times more likely to get you killed than motoring?

Absolutely. Cyclists don't ride the enormous mileages motorists cover,
nor do they take as many trips. The per trip and per mile and per hour
disadvantage soon disappears over the longer term. I suspect that the
half-million or so habitual commuters in the States are pushing their
luck but recreational cyclists are exposed too little to worry (as
long as they don't do anything stupid, of course).

***

These numbers all refer to the States, where the average household has
1.8 cars for 1.7 licensed drivers, with consequences that are obvious.
I should however be surprised to discover that the numbers for any
anglophone country is drastically lower; they all aspire to emulate
the American lifestyle.

In my own country, Ireland, 9 cyclists were killed on the roads in
2006, the last year for which I have statistics, but that merely
reflects the drastic fall in cycling (never very popular) because most
people consider the roads far too dangerous; almost no children cycle
now. 29 pedestrians and 226 motorists also died on the roads, out of a
population of less than 4.5m; a motorist has about a 1 in 20,000
chance of dying in his or her car in any year, which sounds better
than in the States but the roads are much narrower and more crowded, a
nightmare for cyclists; I mention this to stress that gross numbers,
especially from foreign parts, should be adopted only with some
sensitivity to local conditions.

The bicycling cultures of Germany and The Netherlands have much lower
cycling fatalities on any sensible measure than anyone else but these
arise not so much from superior facilities as from a bicycle-directed
culture rather than an automobile-centred culture.

***
We're back where we started. A cyclist is more like to die on the road
than a motorist by a factor of 2.9 per trip, 11 per kilometre
(probably a not overly relevant statistic, as explained above), and
about 3 per hour on the bike.

I conclude that, roughly speaking, cycling carries in microcosm, ride
by ride, three times more risk of dying on the road than motoring.

However, in total, because cycling trips are shorter than motoring
trips, and there are fewer of them, the total macrorisk of death while
cycling is between three and four times *less*, on average over the
full year, than while motoring.

***

Commuters or other cyclists who ride big mileages are of course at
bigger risk and should consider the risk per hour on the bike, which
ranges from about 2-4 times that of driving (for traffic travelling no
faster than four times the cyclist's speed).

***

I cycle for my health. It works.

There are general health benefits to individuals, the environment and
society from cycling.

Everyone must make up his own mind. But I decided long ago that the
health benefits of cycling outweigh the per hour/per trip risks. I've
given up the car.

Andre Jute
10 April 2010.

***
Not copyright. May be freely reproduced. It would be a courtesy to use
the article in full including this note.

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 1:54:01 PM UTC, wrote:
again, proximity to the device.
....
people feeding sharks by hand

Surely, you mean "proximity to the teeth", Mr Daniels?

well sure highest cause of natural death is from heart attack FWIR

Nah, these figures are confused by attending physicians using "heart failure" on death certificates as a euphemism for "There are no suspicious circumstances but I don't really know why he died. It looks like he just wore out.." "Heart failure" is a safe assumption, because everyone's heart stops when he dies; the family doesn't want the doctor to write, "The fat **** overate and under exercised. He did it to himself." For Krygowski to push this poor quality **** is either ignorant or a troll, as Ridealot suspects.

Andre Jute
Chi squares in the Place de Laplace

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:04:48 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're blowing smoke out of your slack ass, Franki-boy. I repeat the entirety of your original post below my signature*. Nowhere do you say these numbers are dicey. The implication is that you approve of them, and you immediately make a half-assed, half-funny case with. What else can we conclude but that you endorse numbers you publish without any other comment than to use them to ride your dumbass hobby-horse? Of course you endorsed them, until Joe and Jay and I and others pointed out glaring holes in them. Now you try to lie your way out of your endorsement. Not going to happen, ****head.

Andre Jute
The nastiest thing about Frank Krygowski is his open contempt for everyon else's intelligence

*Here's Franki-boy's opening post, in which he endorses the content of that wretched article by deliberately failing to warn us that it is crap (the only alternative is ignorance, which with Krygowski is always possible), and furthermore making a case for one of his hobby-horses ("Danger! Danger!") based on it. That constitutes endorsement, twice, in anyone's language.

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:04:48 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're blowing smoke out of your slack ass, Franki-boy. I repeat the entirety of your original post below my signature*. Nowhere do you say these numbers are dicey. The implication is that you approve of them, and you immediately make a half-assed, half-funny case with. What else can we conclude but that you endorse numbers you publish without any other comment than to use them to ride your dumbass hobby-horse? Of course you endorsed them, until Joe and Jay and I and others pointed out glaring holes in them. Now you try to lie your way out of your endorsement. Not going to happen, ****head.

Tell us how you -really- feel

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:22:29 AM UTC, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:04:48 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're blowing smoke out of your slack ass, Franki-boy. I repeat the entirety of your original post below my signature*. Nowhere do you say these numbers are dicey. The implication is that you approve of them, and you immediately make a half-assed, half-funny case with. What else can we conclude but that you endorse numbers you publish without any other comment than to use them to ride your dumbass hobby-horse? Of course you endorsed them, until Joe and Jay and I and others pointed out glaring holes in them. Now you try to lie your way out of your endorsement. Not going to happen, ****head..

Tell us how you -really- feel

Thanks Doug. Yup, I think Kreepy Krygo is an offense to intelligent people everywhere, and a danger to the cycling community because of his ridiculous dream (nightmare for cyclists, more like) of being "a spokesman for bicycles". The minute Krygowski starts speaking, the bicycles will run away to the Hillary and Trump dog and pony show.

Andre Jute
Thank you for the opportunity to further the truth. Your reward will be in another place.

the graph is very slick, engrossing simplicity. a pole

I enjoyed dissing it

the internet https://goo.gl/03Za43

prosaic. devoid of charm or artistry

On 2/11/2016 5:22 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:04:48 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're blowing smoke out of your slack ass, Franki-boy. I repeat the entirety of your original post below my signature*. Nowhere do you say these numbers are dicey. The implication is that you approve of them, and you immediately make a half-assed, half-funny case with. What else can we conclude but that you endorse numbers you publish without any other comment than to use them to ride your dumbass hobby-horse? Of course you endorsed them, until Joe and Jay and I and others pointed out glaring holes in them. Now you try to lie your way out of your endorsement. Not going to happen, ****head.

Tell us how you -really- feel

Andre's mistake is letting Frank's misstatements rile him up.

And your mistake is doing a follow-up post so that all of us that have
both of them filtered out now see that thread.

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:27:46 AM UTC, sms wrote:
On 2/11/2016 5:22 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 5:08:30 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:04:48 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/11/2016 6:59 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It's about what one expects from The Economist these days; well, maybe in that silly list The Economist overfilled its quota; whatever, Krygowski has conclusively screwed himself by endorsing it.

The idea that I endorsed it is nonsense. I discussed its shortcomings
pretty thoroughly. Get a grip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You're blowing smoke out of your slack ass, Franki-boy. I repeat the entirety of your original post below my signature*. Nowhere do you say these numbers are dicey. The implication is that you approve of them, and you immediately make a half-assed, half-funny case with. What else can we conclude but that you endorse numbers you publish without any other comment than to use them to ride your dumbass hobby-horse? Of course you endorsed them, until Joe and Jay and I and others pointed out glaring holes in them. Now you try to lie your way out of your endorsement. Not going to happen, ****head.

Tell us how you -really- feel

Andre's mistake is letting Frank's misstatements rile him up.

And your mistake is doing a follow-up post so that all of us that have
both of them filtered out now see that thread.

What are you on about this time, Scharfie? A dumbcluck welder like Krygowski doesn't know enough psychology to rile me. I crunch his nuts regularly because he's here, he's dumb and dangerous to cycling, and I need the exercise.

Andre Jute
Harmless until prodded

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