First Helmet : jury is out.

Frank Krygowski

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote in part:
>
> << Well I guess I gotta call bullshit on that one, unless
> you can produce
>
>>some numbers that show "injuries beyond abrasions and
>>bruises are very rare." Good luck.
>
>
> Hmm. Numbers? See below. >>
>
>
> You gave--once again, like a freakin' broken record--
> fatality stats, which have nothing to do with your
> completely unfounded claim that "injuries beyond abrasions
> and bruises are very rare."
>
> Are you really that dense? FATALITY STATS DO NOT DEFINE
> THE DANGER OF CYCLING. Whew. That felt good.

Not everything that feels good is impressive, Robert.

> There aren't any numbers that back up your claim. Admit
> it, stop sneaking around.

Here's the situation: Fatality stats are what are most
often collected, and are the most reliable, because there's
almost never much disagreement about whether or not a
person has died.

To explain, that is in contrast to, say, head injuries. Most
people hear that phrase and think "Brain injury," but some
helmet proponents have called cuts to the ears "head
injuries" in order to inflate scary numbers. "Death" is well
defined. "Head injury" is not. Ditto for "serious injury."

Also, fatalities (from any source) are almost never
considered negiligible. This is in direct contrast to
abrasions, cuts, and even things like broken collarbones.
Sure, these things hurt, they must be treated, and they're
important to the person that suffers them, BUT they rarely
show up in any national statistics, because nobody cares
much how many skinned knees - or even broken collar bones -
there are in this country!

So you're asking about data that includes items nobody cares
much about. Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find.

There has been at least one survey (of League of American
Bicyclist members) asking about the frequency of "serious"
bike crashes. Unfortunately, the resulting data isn't very
useful, since it defined "serious" as "more than $50 damage,
or requiring [some unspecified] medical treatment." Clearly,
in a population of people whose derailleur may sell for
$150, a $50 crash needn't be very "serious." But that survey
showed roughly one >$50 crash every 10,000 miles. IIRC, the
average mileage for LAB members is about 1500 miles per
year, so those crashes come maybe once every seven years.

I don't, AFAIK, have any data on how many miles are ridden
between cyclist trips to the ER. (But please note! If YOU
want to spend time in the library looking for this, you
certainly should! Report back here with citations of the
relevant papers, and some of us will probably read them.)

I have a little data on number of ER visits per year in the
US. In that count, basketball (640,000) beats bicycling
(560,000). Not far behind are beds and bedclothes (400,000),
then chairs and sofas (300,000). So if you want to scare
people by saying their bike is more dangerous than their
sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know it's safer
than their basketball! (That data's from the CPSC.)

I do have the article mentioned before, "Bicycle Accidents:
An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports..." by
Stutts, J.C. et. al , Transportation Research Record 1168.
That one made clear that even most trips to the ER are for
no worse than minor injuries. And FWIW, I have a family
member who is an ER physician. His experience confirms that.

> << And yes, you may have ridden more miles than I do. I
> average only about 2500 miles per year. I wish my job
> didn't take up so much time, but it does, and cycling is
> not my only insterest. >>
>
> <snip rest of passive-aggressive claim to massive
> experience>
>
> Frank, I'm guessing I'm about half your age, and I already
> have accumulated three times your total mileage. My miles
> were primarily in city traffic rather than on the open
> road. Three times, Frank. Think of how much more
> experience I might have when I'm your age. You might want
> to just go back to bed now.

I don't claim to be a mileage champ, Robert.

I do, however, claim to have enough knowledge and experience
to know what I'm talking about. That includes both first
hand and second hand,
i.e. from other cyclists with whom I've ridden.

I also think I've read and studied far more about this issue
than you have. Now, perhaps I'm wrong there. But I note
that, despite your chiding me about numbers, you've given
nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies. Your war
stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not what's
considered robust data.

> The only agenda I have is to tell the truth about riding
> in traffic. Anybody who can call these experiences
> "accident pornography" obviously is speaking from complete
> innocence, and not only that, but you're being
> disrespectful to my friends who suffered these injuries.
>
> Anybody riding in traffic could suffer the same fate.
^^^^^

And anyone driving in traffic _could_ suffer the same fate.
Anyone walking near traffic _could_ suffer the same fate.
Besides, anyone who goes swimming could drown. Anyone who
climbs a ladder, or descends a staircase, could fall.

And from what I've been able to find, these are all
more likely than the horror stories with which you'd
like to scare us.

I just don't know what to say about someone who,
effectively, rides his bike down the street while shouting
"BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!! BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!!" Are
you wanting people to think you're macho by risking it? Are
you trying to get more space at the bike racks?

It's as contradictory as chiding me for lacking
satisfactory numbers, while posting no numbers of your own.
It's just weird!

Personally, I wish you'd take up fast driving. Maybe after
you crashed a few cars, you'd be inspired to shout about how
dangerous motoring is. Maybe you'd start scaring people out
of their cars.

Now _that_ would do the world some good!

--
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and
discussion groups for your local users or business, you need
dbabble! -- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

Frank Krygowski

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote in part:
>
> << Well I guess I gotta call bullshit on that one, unless
> you can produce
>
>>some numbers that show "injuries beyond abrasions and
>>bruises are very rare." Good luck.
>
>
> Hmm. Numbers? See below. >>
>
>
> You gave--once again, like a freakin' broken record--
> fatality stats, which have nothing to do with your
> completely unfounded claim that "injuries beyond abrasions
> and bruises are very rare."
>
> Are you really that dense? FATALITY STATS DO NOT DEFINE
> THE DANGER OF CYCLING. Whew. That felt good.

Not everything that feels good is impressive, Robert.

> There aren't any numbers that back up your claim. Admit
> it, stop sneaking around.

Here's the situation: Fatality stats are what are most
often collected, and are the most reliable, because there's
almost never much disagreement about whether or not a
person has died.

To explain, that is in contrast to, say, head injuries. Most
people hear that phrase and think "Brain injury," but some
helmet proponents have called cuts to the ears "head
injuries" in order to inflate scary numbers. "Death" is well
defined. "Head injury" is not. Ditto for "serious injury."

Also, fatalities (from any source) are almost never
considered negiligible. This is in direct contrast to
abrasions, cuts, and even things like broken collarbones.
Sure, these things hurt, they must be treated, and they're
important to the person that suffers them, BUT they rarely
show up in any national statistics, because nobody cares
much how many skinned knees - or even broken collar bones -
there are in this country!

So you're asking about data that includes items nobody cares
much about. Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find.

There has been at least one survey (of League of American
Bicyclist members) asking about the frequency of "serious"
bike crashes. Unfortunately, the resulting data isn't very
useful, since it defined "serious" as "more than $50 damage,
or requiring [some unspecified] medical treatment." Clearly,
in a population of people whose derailleur may sell for
$150, a $50 crash needn't be very "serious." But that survey
showed roughly one >$50 crash every 10,000 miles. IIRC, the
average mileage for LAB members is about 1500 miles per
year, so those crashes come maybe once every seven years.

I don't, AFAIK, have any data on how many miles are ridden
between cyclist trips to the ER. (But please note! If YOU
want to spend time in the library looking for this, you
certainly should! Report back here with citations of the
relevant papers, and some of us will probably read them.)

I have a little data on number of ER visits per year in the
US. In that count, basketball (640,000) beats bicycling
(560,000). Not far behind are beds and bedclothes (400,000),
then chairs and sofas (300,000). So if you want to scare
people by saying their bike is more dangerous than their
sofa, go right ahead. But please, let them know it's safer
than their basketball! (That data's from the CPSC.)

I do have the article mentioned before, "Bicycle Accidents:
An Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports..." by
Stutts, J.C. et. al , Transportation Research Record 1168.
That one made clear that even most trips to the ER are for
no worse than minor injuries. And FWIW, I have a family
member who is an ER physician. His experience confirms that.

> << And yes, you may have ridden more miles than I do. I
> average only about 2500 miles per year. I wish my job
> didn't take up so much time, but it does, and cycling is
> not my only insterest. >>
>
> <snip rest of passive-aggressive claim to massive
> experience>
>
> Frank, I'm guessing I'm about half your age, and I already
> have accumulated three times your total mileage. My miles
> were primarily in city traffic rather than on the open
> road. Three times, Frank. Think of how much more
> experience I might have when I'm your age. You might want
> to just go back to bed now.

I don't claim to be a mileage champ, Robert.

I do, however, claim to have enough knowledge and experience
to know what I'm talking about. That includes both first
hand and second hand,
i.e. from other cyclists with whom I've ridden.

I also think I've read and studied far more about this issue
than you have. Now, perhaps I'm wrong there. But I note
that, despite your chiding me about numbers, you've given
nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies. Your war
stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not what's
considered robust data.

> The only agenda I have is to tell the truth about riding
> in traffic. Anybody who can call these experiences
> "accident pornography" obviously is speaking from complete
> innocence, and not only that, but you're being
> disrespectful to my friends who suffered these injuries.
>
> Anybody riding in traffic could suffer the same fate.
^^^^^

And anyone driving in traffic _could_ suffer the same fate.
Anyone walking near traffic _could_ suffer the same fate.
Besides, anyone who goes swimming could drown. Anyone who
climbs a ladder, or descends a staircase, could fall.

And from what I've been able to find, these are all
more likely than the horror stories with which you'd
like to scare us.

I just don't know what to say about someone who,
effectively, rides his bike down the street while shouting
"BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!! BICYCLING IS DANGEROUS!!!!" Are
you wanting people to think you're macho by risking it? Are
you trying to get more space at the bike racks?

It's as contradictory as chiding me for lacking
satisfactory numbers, while posting no numbers of your own.
It's just weird!

Personally, I wish you'd take up fast driving. Maybe after
you crashed a few cars, you'd be inspired to shout about how
dangerous motoring is. Maybe you'd start scaring people out
of their cars.

Now _that_ would do the world some good!

--
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and
discussion groups for your local users or business, you need
dbabble! -- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----

Frank Krygowski

R15757 wrote:
> Frank K again:
>
> <snip, snip, snip>
>
> << Hence, numbers are definitely hard to find. >>
>
> So why do you keep making claims you can't back up?
>
> The fact that injury numbers are "hard to find" is
> precisely my point --thanks for taking the baton and
> running with it.

Um... yes, we apparently agree, although I had no idea that
was your point. Seems to me your point is that riding bikes
is unusually dangerous.

We may be able to close this thread quickly. If you _don't_
think cycling is unusually dangerous, say so! We can shake
hands and have a figurative beer together.

Otherwise...

> They are hard to find because they are impossible to
> gather.

Well, not impossible. They are difficult to gather because
nobody is interested in throwing the necessary money toward
such a minor problem.

> The fact that fatality stats are easy to gather does not
> make them particularly useful in this discussion.

Fatality stats form a useful proxy for serious injury stats.
IOW, public health people use fatality data to estimate
injury data. It's not perfectly accurate, of course, but
accurate enough to be useful.

> In fact, that fatality numbers are so readily available
> has _obscured_ the issue in many important ways.

??? Sounds like you're saying that few people die on bikes,
and that hides the unprovable fact that tons and tons of
people are injured!

If that is, indeed, what you mean, then you should prove it.
As is, you're merely begging the question - an elementary
mistake in logic.

> .. I note that, despite your chiding me about numbers,
> you've given nothing beyond tales of you and your buddies.
> Your war stories may be thrilling to you, but they're not
> what's considered robust data. >>
>
> Boy Frank, you sure like to talk, but you don't like
> to listen.
>
> I have already posted two or three or nine times in a
> variety of threads including this one the same USCPSC
> numbers you posted above, maybe you missed it.

Maybe I did miss it. And perhaps my memory's bad. But in
_this_ thread, you've been giving no numbers, while
criticizing mine. In fact, the only numbers you finally
did give are the ones you now admit being in error by a
factor of two!

If numbers posted in _other_ threads absolve you, my similar
ones should certainly absolve me. But given your anonymous
handle, you shouldn't expect anyone to pay attention to
anything but what you say in this thread.

> None of the numbers available suggest that serious
> injuries are "vanishingly rare." Sorry dude. Nice
> phrase though.

Ah well. To me, what's important is: the majority of bike-
related ER visits are for minor injuries; and bike ER visits
are not much more common than those caused by beds and
bedclothes.

For all I know, you have lots of horror stories of
bedclothes injuries. Maybe that colors your outlook?
Whatever.

If those facts don't satisfy you, I'd say it's up to you to
give numbers indicating serious bike injuries are very
common. Using the lack of evidence to "prove" they are
common is absolute nonsense.

> So let me get this straight. Your belief is that the
> particular risks associated with "normal," lawful cycling
> extend, realistically, only to minor injuries, abrasions,
> skinned knees, these sorts of things.

That's pretty much it. It's not impossible to get a serious
injury - either by cycling, or by walking in a crosswalk -
but it's not likely to happen to any particular cyclist (or
walker) in the next couple hundred years, statistically
speaking. If people learn to ride lawfully and reasonably,
they'll be as safe as if they were in a car. Per-hour data
for cycling, motoring and walking confirm that. (I posted it
recently.)

> More serious injuries are in your words "vanishingly
> rare" and therefore you feel that almost any concern
> about these injuries or attempt to avoid them would just
> be silly, "handwringing." Fascinating..

Nope, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. What I
meant was that harping on the few horror stories gives a
distorted image of cycling, portrays it as an "extreme"
activity, and is bad for cycling and for cyclists. It's
counterproductive.

To avoid such injuries, what a person needs to do is cycle
lawfully and reasonably. It's easy to learn. A child can do
it - literally.

>
> What I can't figure out is, if these serious injuries are
> so rare, how come so many dedicated cyclists have
> experienced them?

"So many" is wonderfully vague. But obviously, we hear the
accounts because there are lots and lots of dedicated
cyclists, and today's communication is rather wonderful.

People's fear mechanisms are still tuned to the days of
isolated villages. If a mother heard about a child carried
off by a tiger, it was pertinent, and it caused her to keep
her child indoors. Obviously, that tiger was close by.

Today, we apparently get posters to usenet who scan Google
for "bicycle" and "death" and cheerfully report every
incident in America. Or we get anonymous posters from God-knows-
where who tell tales of buddies bleeding from the eyes.
Well, in a country with many, many millions of cyclists,
these things will happen - but they are still rare.

It's all pretty straightforward.

> I always figured the danger of cycling in traffic was
> pretty obvious to an intelligent person...

The danger of cycling in traffic is greatly overstated by
many supposedly intelligent people.

I see that you are enthusiastically dedicated to this
overstating. You can't find numbers to back you up, so you
rely on horror stories.

Fine. But I repeat, I really do wish you'd find a
different hobby to treat this way. You do cycling, and
cyclists, no good.

--
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

Pk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> In umpteen years of cycling I have fallen from my bike to
> the ground exactly twice: once when something got lodged
> in the front wheel, which sent me headfirst into the
> ground (no helmet, survived OK); the other was when I hit
> a diesel slick on the 'bent and went down on my arse
> (missing my head by 3ft).

.... but still landing on your brains! (:-)

pk

Pk

David Kerber wrote:
> In article <20040518010158.09877.00000037@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> r15757 @aol.com says...
>
> ...
>
>> I got nothin'. Thanks for the citation. What really jumps
>> out there is that .34 for peds as opposed to .17 for
>> motor vehicles. I would be interested to see how Robinson
>> gathered his numbers. Do you know? The suggestion that
>> walking around is twice as likely as driving to result in
>> a head injury _death_ I find far-fetched.
>
> I don't. Have you ever looked at the numbers of
> pedestrians in major cities who cut in and out of traffic,
> hoping it will stop for them? Especially kids.

Which points to the problem with the quoted data.

To suggest that all pedestrians fall into the .34 group is a
gross distortion. The risk groups are (in no particualr
order) chidren, elderly, drunks and idiots. To lump these in
with the sensible pedestrians who do not cut in and out of
traffic (redefine them as road users on foot??) gives a
distorted picture of risk.

Extract those from the data and compare "sane and sensible
cyclists" with "sane and sensible pedestrians" (ie each
following the law not doing stupid things which expose them
to excess risk) and and my guess is the risk rates would be
very different from those quoted. If i walk 15 minutes to
the local shop on the pavement (sidewalk) obeying the law
and crossing the road only at approved points and following
"good practice" am I at more or less risk than cycling the
same road for 15 minutes? the very fact that as a cyclist
i'm closer to the 1 tonne moving lumps of metal some driven
by people who do not see or consider cyclists tells me that
i'm at more risk on a bike.

pk

pk

jcjordan

I am at a loss as to why so many are against helments. I have been wearing one for years and find that they are comfortable and in no way limit my hearing or vision. Admittedly i always spend good money on a helmet (my last one cost $250 Australia). I have had two cases where i have been forced to replace my helmet due to damage and in both these cases the damage that would have been done to my head would have been serious.

I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to help a cyclist who was knock down by a car who was not wearing a helmet, even though they are compulsory here. Having spoken to the paramedic and the doctor at the hospital both belived that although his other injurys were serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which worried them the most.

The end result was a fellow cyclist who is now permanently brain damaged and can not care for himself.

So my vote is pro helmet

Badger_south

On 21 May 2004 08:55:49 GMT, r15757@aol.com (R15757) wrote:

>One of these days Frank you will wake up--hopefully not in
>a hospital room--and you will realize that I know what I'm
>talking about.
>
>I wish you many more years of injury-free cycling.

This disingenuous statement is uncool. I'd like to think it
was beneath you to say such a thing.

Shame on you!

-B

Badger_south

On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:17 GMT, jcjordan <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com>
wrote:

>I am at a loss as to why so many are against helments. I
>have been wearing one for years and find that they are
>comfortable and in no way limit my hearing or vision.
>Admittedly i always spend good money on a helmet (my last
>one cost $250 Australia). I have had two cases where i have
>been forced to replace my helmet due to damage and in both
>these cases the damage that would have been done to my head
>would have been serious.
>
>I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to help
>a cyclist who was knock down by a car who was not wearing a
>helmet, even though they are compulsory here. Having spoken
>to the paramedic and the doctor at the hospital both
>belived that although his other injurys were serious
>(broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which worried
>them the most.
>
>The end result was a fellow cyclist who is now permanently
>brain damaged and can not care for himself.
>
>So my vote is pro helmet

It's not that anyone is -against- helmets.

Two or three simple issues:

o One does not want helmets mandated by gubmits. It should
be a choice. o One does not want biking perceived, or
labeled as a 'dangerous' activity. o A helmet may not be
fitted correctly and may not do the job expected, and may
protect only against a narrow range of specific head trauma,
and may exacerbate neck trauma. It's not clear.

I'm a helmet wearer and I urge my loved ones to do so, but I
can't disagree with the above reasons, either. As a result
of the threads, I can say that I've tightened my helmet so
it doesn't slide back on my forehead! <g>

I might be persuaded that it's a justifiable choice or very
young riders (children), who by defo might still be getting
their co-ordination, or very old riders, who may be losing
their co-ordination; however could not the older rider make
an informed choice on their own?

In a perfect analysis, say by magic, if everyone wore the
helmets, and the rate and type of head injury remained
exactly the same as with no helmets, and was a very, very
small number of total riders, would you still be in favor of
mandating for adults? Probably most would say, given this
'magic analysis: "ok, we have now learned that cycling is a
very safe activity"

The manufacturers of helmets would probably still make the
same number of helmets and the same numbers of ppl would
still wear them, or not. After all we have to have something
to put our mirrors on, or our viking horns!
<g>

-B

Stephen Harding

jcjordan wrote:

> I have also had the unfortunate experence of having to
> help a cyclist who was knock down by a car who was not
> wearing a helmet, even though they are compulsory here.
> Having spoken to the paramedic and the doctor at the
> hospital both belived that although his other injurys were
> serious (broken bones, etc.) it was the head injurys which
> worried them the most.

Why are you only concerned with head injuries from possible
bike crashes? Aren't head injuries possible while walking,
driving a car, etc? Is a head injury from bicycling somehow
especially more tragic than from other forms of accident?

The bottom line is *expectation* of injury. You apparently
feel you will more likely end up with a crushed head while
bicycling than from driving. Statistics vary somewhat on the
realities of these expectations, but most that I've heard of
seem to point to a car crash as a more likely source of a
head injury than a bike.

If you feel your car seatbelt or airbag will protect you
from head injury, you might be wrong. Most cars still don't
have side impact air bags, where driver or passenger head
slam into windows, door or windshield pillars. The air bags
themselves can cause head injury.

If a helmet is so easy to wear, so inexpensive, and so
effective in preventing head injury, why do you [likely]
forsake wearing one in your car?

Probably because you simply don't *expect* to have a head
injury in a car crash. It's probability is low enough that
it's as effective as wearing a helmet around the house where
a brain damaging fall could occur.

Unfortunately, it may not be such an unlikely event, in
comparison with bicycle usage. You might want to slap on a
helmet when hopping into your car for your next drive to
prevent injury to your noggin'. What harm could it do?

SMH

Curtis L . Russ

On 21 May 2004 02:12:59 GMT, r15757@aol.com (R15757) wrote:

>I also posted additional USCPSC numbers that show
>outpatient visits are roughly equal to ER visits.

Since I haven't read the data), just a question of
clarification. Are the outpatient visit incidents
specifically separate incidents from the ER visits, largely
overlapping related visits (the norm for people with
insurance - first the ER, then the outpatient visit in the
immediate future), or an unknown mix?

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

neil0502

A few quick points:

1) I don't advocate compulsory helmet use. I don't even particularly advocate helmet use. I've said that it should be the cyclists personal choice. If the passion with which people approach this is based in the belief that there's a big new law a-comin', it isn't coming from me. We agree on that. It shouldn't create such an adversarial atmosphere;

2) I do think it's important that--if the sole reasons that people do not wear helmets are issues like:

..minor discomfort
..extra cost item
..one more item to carry/secure

...that those reasons be clearly laid out. If most of us feel that helmets are the only smart choice for MTB riders, I would suggest that we state that, too.

Again, we can argue the statistics all day long (I won't. I don't think it's productive). What I think is important is that a newbie understand the cost (inconvenience) and the benefit (however minor those may be) associated with helmet use;

3) It's a "Logic 101" red herring to:

..a) shift the conversation from " The pro's and cons of wearing a cycling helmet" to the potential dangers of driving cars, or of being a pedestrian;

..b) accuse people of disparaging the sport or calling it dangerous simply because they question the wisdom of not wearing a helmet.

. . . and as for me: my Cannondale beckons. Outta' here.....

Neil

Frank Krygowski

PK wrote:

>
> To suggest that all pedestrians fall into the .34 group is
> a gross distortion. The risk groups are (in no particualr
> order) chidren, elderly, drunks and idiots. To lump these
> in with the sensible pedestrians who do not cut in and out
> of traffic (redefine them as road users on foot??) gives a
> distorted picture of risk.
>
> Extract those from the data and compare "sane and
> sensible cyclists" with "sane and sensible pedestrians"
> (ie each following the law not doing stupid things which
> expose them to excess risk) and and my guess is the risk
> rates would be very different from those quoted. If i
> walk 15 minutes to the local shop on the pavement
> (sidewalk) obeying the law and crossing the road only at
> approved points and following "good practice" am I at
> more or less risk than cycling the same road for 15
> minutes? the very fact that as a cyclist i'm closer to
> the 1 tonne moving lumps of metal some driven by people
> who do not see or consider cyclists tells me that i'm at
> more risk on a bike.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is: Most
of the pedestrians hit by cars are irresponsible lowlifes.
Most of the bicyclists hit by cars are sane and sensible.
Therefore, despite having worse numbers, walking is safe;
despite having better numbers, bicycling is dangerous.

ISTR that the great majority of fatally injured pedestrians
in New York City are killed while crossing legally within
crosswalks. This would seem to belie your first point. I
suppose I can try to track down that citation, if you like.

And IIRC, roughly half of seriously injured cyclists are
at fault in the crashes. This would seem to belie your
second point.

I understand that you _believe_ you're at a greater risk on
a bike. But stating your belief does not prove it correct.

At this point, perhaps I should ask: Are you a cyclist? If
so, why do you continue in an activity you argue against?

--
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

Pk

Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
> If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is: Most
> of the pedestrians hit by cars are irresponsible lowlifes.
> Most of the bicyclists hit by cars are sane and sensible.
> Therefore, despite having worse numbers, walking is safe;
> despite having better numbers, bicycling is dangerous.

No, you do not understand me correctly. (:-)

I'm talking from uk experience.

From various sources:

"New figures reveal that more than seven out of ten of young
adult pedestrians (aged between 16 -34) killed on the UK's
roads and included in the study had been drinking."

and

"Since 1979 there has been a 50 per cent increase in the
number of pedestrians killed who had a BAC above 2.5 times
the drink drive limit (80mgs/100ml). The figure for those
pedestrians with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in
excess of the drink drive limit (80mgs/100ml) in 1989 was 31
per cent - by 1999 this had increased to 39 per cent."

In 1999 the rate of pedestrian fatalities for those aged 60+
was 3 times higher than for people aged 23-59. For those
aged 70+ the rate is 6 times higher; the highest in any age
group (6).

Country Child Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000

Great Britain 1.21 Austria 0.79 Belgium 0.94 Denmark 0.85
Finland 0.94 France 0.91 Germany 0.64 Ireland 1.31 Italy
0.49 Netherlands 0.66 Norway 0.81 Spain 0.94 Sweden 0.54
Switzerland 0.96

>
> I understand that you _believe_ you're at a greater risk
> on a bike. But stating your belief does not prove it
> correct.
>
> At this point, perhaps I should ask: Are you a cyclist? If
> so, why do you continue in an activity you argue against?

That is not what I'm arguing.

What I am arguing is that to compare bald statistics for
cyclists vs pedestrians is unwise as you are most likely
comparing apples and oranges.

I am a cyclist but think that to argue (as some do) that it
is more dangerous for me to be a pedestrian than a cyclist
is simply daft and a misuse of the data. (why else are
cycling internet communities swamped with tale of homicidal
ant cyclist cagers?}

There is no such thing as "safe". There are relative risks
and for the typical adult, sane, not drunk person the
relative risks are such that walking on the pavement is
safer than cycling on the road. But the risks for neither
even approach what might be termed unacceptable

Frank Krygowski

PK wrote:

>
>
> What I am arguing is that to compare bald statistics for
> cyclists vs pedestrians is unwise as you are most likely
> comparing apples and oranges.

You've produced data to prove that British pedestrians are a
bunch of drunks - or at least, the ones who die are. I'll
admit I hadn't seen that.

But I'm not sure you've conclusively demonstrated a great
difference between pedestrians and cyclists. For example,
some researchers in America believe that roughly half the
bike fatalies are people cycling at night without lights.
It's been postulated (but not proven) that a large portion
of these are drunks who have lost their drivers licences.
IOW, there may be great similarities between drunken peds
and drunken cyclists hit by cars.

And here we see one of the problems with almost all
available statistics: there's always wiggle-room allowing
the reader to say "Ah, but those people aren't like me." We
get that a lot here, in lots of different contexts.

It may be true. It may be that a sober ped has little risk.
It may also be true for a sober cyclist. It may be (and I
hope is) true that a college professor who never drinks
while riding (well, almost never), who is certified to teach
cycling, who has thirty-plus years of cycling experience,
and who rides a blue bike will never have a serious
accident. ;-) At least I can say that one data point
indicates that.

But we'll never find stats that detailed. We have to make do
with those we have - or seek funding to collect the ones we
want. Given this situation, I think it's still reasonable to
say cycling's risks are comparable to other "normal"
activities, certainly not markedly worse.

>
> I am a cyclist but think that to argue (as some do) that
> it is more dangerous for me to be a pedestrian than a
> cyclist is simply daft and a misuse of the data. (why else
> are cycling internet communities swamped with tale of
> homicidal ant cyclist cagers?}

See my previous post about today's communication system.
Whatever gets a rise gets publicized.

Really, I could deliver a post about the nice person in the
car that delayed their travel to wave me across a street the
other day. But how long would that thread be?

>
> There is no such thing as "safe". There are relative risks
> and for the typical adult, sane, not drunk person the
> relative risks are such that walking on the pavement is
> safer than cycling on the road. But the risks for neither
> even approach what might be termed unacceptable

The last sentence, at least, I agree with completely.

--
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]