On Apr 9, 5:16*am, mike wrote:
In article ad34312f-6677-45a1-a016-e80a5c8b8d72
@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...





Frank Krygowski has claimed, inappropriately in a thread about a
cylist killed on the road, that

"...some annual risks for Americans, according to _The Book of Risks_
by Laudan:

[snip]
You'll die from riding your bicycle: 1 in 130,000"

First of all, notice the *absence of the defining and delimiting "if"
for the cycling calculation*. This ****** Laudan has just taken the
entire US population of 307m without asking how many ride bicycles,
and based his number on that. Presumably that is why Krygowski, never
a champion of truth or fair reporting, is so keen to quote him. The
Laudan/Krygowski risk factor is thus probably only half of the real
risk factor for a regular cyclist (see below). The stupidity of the
Laudan/Krygowski formulation can be seen when we realize that their
forecast is therefore that 2462 cyclists will die on the roads this
year (307m/130,000), three and a half times as many fatalities as can
actually be expected. Frank Krygowski (and Laudan too, if Frank typed
that out correctly) should leave statistics to people who know what
they're doing.

Here's the correct way to calculate the risk of dying while
cycling.The risk if you don't cycle is zero. You have to cycle to die
while cycling. We know that about 57 million people ride a bike at
least once every year and that about 700 cyclists will be killed on
the roads. (-- Source: -- *http://www.bikeleague.org/media/facts/#how_many
--)The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1
in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for
regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski
error of 1 in 130,000.

While Frank's statistics are misleading, your method of calculating the
risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed.

I'm just going along with Krygowski for the moment, showing at every
turn how ridiculous his sources and his methods and his hysterical
screeching is. I would have let that table pass except that Franki
Shavelegs ****ed me off when he stood on the coffin of a cyclist dead
on the road and screeched abut how safe cycling is. Krygowski's
advocacy is counterproductive and we should something about it. I am.

Clearly, the risk of
dying while cycling depends on (among other factors) how much time you
spend in the saddle, the distance you travel, and the traffic conditions
typical of roads you travel on.

I've already said so in the other threads accompanying this one. You
must have missed those posts.

The "most casual cyclist" presumably
cycles seldom, over short distances, and on quiet roads, so their chance
of being killed (on an annual basis) will be far lower than your figure.

No, Mike, my figure of 1 chance in 81,500 of a cyclist being killed
this year is *the most favourable possible interpretation*, the least
possible chance of a cyclist being killed, because it includes anyone
who was even on a bike for five minutes in the year. Subtract those,
or calculate for the regular cyclist, and the chances of an accident
clearly increases, as you say. But I've said so, above, in the post
you're complaining about, and you just didn't read it. Here it is
again:

The chance of even the most casual cyclist being killed is thus 1
in about 81,500, and correspondingly higher risk (lower number) for
regular cyclists, a very, very long way from the Laudan/Krygowski
error of 1 in 130,000.

A keen racer, commuter, or tourer typical of the audience here is far
more likely to cycle often, over large distances, and on busy roads, so
their chance of being killed is much higher than your figure. *

Exactly! But I note that you query me, while you let Krygowski's silly
1 in 130,000 figure pass, even though its methodology and stupid
errors would overstate total cyclist fatalities by a factor of about
3.5, in effect ludicrously "forecasting" that 2462 cyclists will die
on the roads in the US this year instead of the 700 that reasonable
people expect.

In practice, all we can do is to cycle defensively (by whatever
definition) and hope that the pleasure, convenience, and social and
health benefits of cycling outweighs the risks.

Oh, you've just taken Krygowski's bleating at face value again when he
claims I say cycling is "lethal". I said no such thing. I asked a
question about degree of danger, and in fact answered it well before
in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" Go look, read for
yourself, see what I concluded. But no one cares about the positive
(or the truth, apparently): you all listen to Krygo bleating and take
him at his word without investigation. But that stupid **** Krygo lies
constantly. He lies about the danger, he lies about what I say, he
lies about what I concluded. The record stands in black and white on
this conference. Read it.

Why are you lying to us again, Frank Krygowski?

Lying? No more misleading than your 'calculation' Andre.

i've just demonstrated that my calculation proves, and was intended by
me to prove, exactly what you and I both consider correct. I've
demonstrated that I have said so. Once more, you've been listening to
the deceitful Frank Krygowski instead of putting your mind gear and
reading exactly what I've said.

Mike

Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain