Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling

On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:31 am, wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" wrote:


snipped

- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs -



This from someone who has called for an MHL.

Not one that he himself would be subject to, oh no; only _other_
people should have to wear helmets.

On Mar 26, 9:03 am, wrote:

Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality
rates ...

How do you know they are '1993 estimates?' Because they
popped up in a magazine article about car fires in
1993? Fact is you don't know if these are 1993 numbers
or numbers from 1962 or if they are for one month or
ten years or if they are even for the US or for the entire
world or if they include children or if they are
completely made up, or anything.

for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much
safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey
techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells
data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep
their methods confidential.

Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because
if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour
estimates, people would just laugh.

Robert

On 26 Mar 2007 10:29:36 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:03 am, wrote:

Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality
rates ...



for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much
safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey
techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells
data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep
their methods confidential.

Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because
if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour
estimates, people would just laugh.


Oooo, you are the chosen one...

Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates;
you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so
emphatically that they are laughable -

- unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
zealots.

On Mar 26, 10:34 am, wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"

wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:31 am, wrote:
On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" wrote:

snipped

- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs -

This from someone who has called for an MHL.

Please provide the evidence, dickhead. It's been over two weeks now.
Post the link!



Not one that he himself would be subject to, oh no; only _other_
people should have to wear helmets.



Come on, we could still use that laugh!!!

On Mar 26, 10:35 am, wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 10:29:36 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:03 am, wrote:

Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality
rates ...

for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much
safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey
techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells
data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep
their methods confidential.

Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because
if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour
estimates, people would just laugh.

Oooo, you are the chosen one...

Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates;
you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so
emphatically that they are laughable -

Picture it: dartboard, blindfold, bottle of rum. So it's
off by a billion hours or so, so what?

(btw, estimate of WHAT? You might have to determine that
before you start a-wonderin about methodology. There is
no way to determine exactly what this famous chart
which was located in an article about car fires purports
to estimate, much less the method used for
obtaining said estimate.)



- unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
zealots.

Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
to be an important fight, I would
suggest not relying on such obviously
laughably bogus 'data'.

Robert

On 26 Mar 2007 14:38:10 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 26, 10:35 am, wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 10:29:36 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:03 am, wrote:

Failure Analysis Associates' 1993 estimates of US per-hour fatality
rates ...

for about 20 activities (the one that showed cycling as much
safer than motoring) did not come with an explanation of survey
techniques. But FAA (now Exponent) is a commercial firm that sells
data to insurance companies. It's not surprising to me that they keep
their methods confidential.

Har. They 'keep their methods confidential' because
if they disclosed how they arrived at such per-hour
estimates, people would just laugh.

Oooo, you are the chosen one...

Oh chosen one, please tell us how they did arrive at those estimates;
you must know the answer, otherwise you would not assert so
emphatically that they are laughable -

Picture it: dartboard, blindfold, bottle of rum. So it's
off by a billion hours or so, so what?




I would
suggest not relying on such obviously
laughably bogus 'data'.



Why do you say it is obviously laughable?

wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:35 am, wrote:

{snips}

- unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
zealots.

Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
to be an important fight, I would
suggest not relying on such obviously
laughably bogus 'data'.

Too late.

On Mar 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:35 am, wrote:

{snips}

- unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
zealots.
Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
to be an important fight, I would
suggest not relying on such obviously
laughably bogus 'data'.

Too late.


Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their
interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as
"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski.

wrote:

Why do you say it is obviously laughable?

Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
to the library and look at the original
source for this 'information.' It's in a
magazine called Design News, appended
to an article about car fires. The date of
the issue was October 4, 1993. The
article had nothing to do with bicycling.
Check it out and tell us if you can:

-- determine if the numbers are for the
previous year (1992), or for some other
year, or for a year's worth of data, or
a decade's, or a month's, or forever...

-- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
kids or just to adults.

-- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
or the whole world's population of cyclists.

-- determine what methodology was used
to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
(regardless of what place or time period
the chart is concerned with), a necessary
step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'

-- ETC.

I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
not there for our edification and enjoyment.
I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
confidential!

This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
useless. The number itself might be right on the
mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
would do such a thing??

Robert

On Mar 26, 11:49 pm, wrote:
wrote:
Why do you say it is obviously laughable?

Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
to the library and look at the original
source for this 'information.' It's in a
magazine called Design News, appended
to an article about car fires. The date of
the issue was October 4, 1993. The
article had nothing to do with bicycling.
Check it out and tell us if you can:

-- determine if the numbers are for the
previous year (1992), or for some other
year, or for a year's worth of data, or
a decade's, or a month's, or forever...

-- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
kids or just to adults.

-- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
or the whole world's population of cyclists.

-- determine what methodology was used
to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
(regardless of what place or time period
the chart is concerned with), a necessary
step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'

-- ETC.

I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
not there for our edification and enjoyment.
I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
confidential!

This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
useless. The number itself might be right on the
mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
would do such a thing??

It's true, the chart was not presented as a definitive study of bike
safety data. It was a straightforward attempt to put various terrible
consequences in context, i.e. to rate relative risks. The article to
which it was attached was not written by FAA staff. Apparently an
editor asked (and probably paid) for the relative risk list, from the
largest risk consultation firm in the US.

But the list has gotten a lot of attention from the bicycling crowd,
for two reasons:

1) Bicycling advocates have pointed out that it rates cycling's
fatality rate (per hour) as tiny, roughly half that of motoring, and
roughly 1/4 that of swimming.

2) Bicycling's detractors claim it must be worthless, since the data
sources are not explained.

But so far, the detractors (i.e. the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crowd)
haven't complained about the lack of explanation of swimming
exposure. Or motorcycling. Or flying in light planes. Or scuba
diving. Or water skiing. None of which have easily estimable hours
of exposure, and all of which are listed as having higher fatality
rates than cycling. (Motoring can be said to have more data behind
it, but there's still significant uncertainty there - as well as great
differences in different conditions, e.g. freeway vs. country
highway.)

The bicycling detractors have also not given better data as a
rebuttal, AFAIK.

What can be said is that the FAA cycling figure is roughly comparable
to findings from several other countries, using their own methods.
And if it's off by a factor of four, cycling is still safer than
swimming, according to FAA's "swimming" data. Should we scare people
away from the pool and beach? And even if it's off by a factor of
ten, cycling still requires many millions of miles before you reach
even a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike.

How many millions of miles do you plan to cycle? For the math phobics
with cheap calculators, here's a hint: you'd better be a strong
believer in reincarnation.

Here's the list: http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

- Frank Krygowski