Cycling is dangerous

On 15 Oct 2003 02:18:44 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

Of course people get injured and killed while cycling but
many more people get injured and killed when they slip and fall in their homes.
Is reaching into a kitchen cupboard, climbing stairs, or mopping a bathroom
floor "dangerous"?

Your heart is in the right place, but you're using specious arguments.

"Many more people" reach into kitchen cupboards, climb stairs and mop
bathrooms than ride bicycles.

You'd need to compare injuries per, for example, hours of exposure to
hazard in order to draw defensible conclusions about the relative
safety of activities. I'm not pretending to know what these numbers
are, mind you, nor am I disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just
pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 01:54:03 -0700, Zoot Katz
wrote:

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:57:52 -0400, ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense

Nope, swimming isn't dangerous. It's one's inability to swim that is a
risky proposition.

Speaking as a former rescuer, it's often the "good swimmer" who
drowns. He (this is a statistically valid pronoun, if not a
politically correct one) is a "good swimmer" and therefore needn't
wear a PFD aboard a ski boat. He's a good swimmer so he knows he can
get out of trouble if the ice is a bit thin where the fish are biting.

And so forth. As a Rescue Diver, I can count on one hand the bodies
I've participated in finding and recovering who wouldn't still be
alive if they'd been a bit more "cowardly" and worn flotation.

You cannot generalize that directly to helmets, but there's some
overlap.

If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.

The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
bad.

Example: 25 years of car driving, approx: 750,000 miles driven, one
fender-bender, no scratches, no anything. Bicycling, 25 years, 75,000 miles,
approx: 15 mishaps, amounting in numerous road rash incidents, a broken
nose, leg, arm, twisted ankles, stuff like that. That's a 150:1 that the
cyclist will suffer a form of injury versus driving a car.

The airline industry got caught when they created a statistic showing air
travel to be safer than driving. On a per mile basis, yes it is, as a
typical flight is hundred's of miles in distance versus the typical car trip
being in the ten's of miles. However, on a "per trip", or "usage" basis,
statistics show airline travel to be more dangerous than driving a car.
Further, if airline travel was averaged out to the extent that cars are used
in our society, then the risk of flying becomes so unbelievably dangerous
most of us would prefer to stay in bed.

Rule # 1: Statistics can be your friend or your enemy, and can be compiled
to meet the needs of the user;

Rule # 2: Using cars as the argument for the safety of bicycling is bound to
back-fire;

Rule # 3: Most things that are fun also add an element of danger.


"Kaputnik" wrote in message
om...
First, thanks for the link to that site. I've been browsing through
it, and find it interesting.

I love cycling, and have no intention of giving it up. It is not,
however, the only alternative to being sedentary. If I went for long
walks every day, I would certainly reduce my chances of dying from
general poor health (as compared to no exercise). And, where I live,
I could do most of it on relatively safe trails that are closed to
motor vehicles.

I accept that my favorite exercise does involve an increased risk of
accidental death or injury. I do my best to minimize this by using a
helmet, proper lighting where applicable, and developing safe riding
habits in general. Even so, if it were a purely pragmatic decision, to
find a fitness program that would keep me healthy while minimizing the
risk of accidents, bicycling would not be my choice. If I really
wanted to avoid traffic accidents, and could handle the boredom, I
could probably do quite well with indoor equipment.

As for driving a car, yes that certainly is dangerous. But I also
find it indispensable at this time. It certainly seems more dangerous
than cycling, with over 37,000 driver or passenger traffic crash
victims in 2002 compared with 662 "pedalcyclists". What isn't clear
from this, though, is how many cyclists are actually riding on roads
shared by motor vehicles. The smaller number of cyclist victims is
probably due in part to the smaller number of cyclists out there.
Returning to my first point, there were 4808 pedestrian victims, so
walking might seem to be more dangerous than cycling. But again, you
have to ask if there were not in fact more pedestrians out there. And
these accidents were presumably not on limited access trails.

Statistics can be fun, but it's not always clear at first what they
really mean.

"Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote in
message ...
The first step is to look up the statistics. Start he

http://wonder.cdc.gov/

You will find links to health statistics and death statistics. From
there
you can show the relative risk of a sedentary lifestyle. You can also
find
the relative risk of getting killed while cycling. You are going to find
that being sedentary is a risky business and that driving a car is the
thing
that is most likely to get you killed. Cycling is relatively safe.

Doug Purdy wrote:
:: "Robert Chambers" wrote in message
:: ...
::: potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone
::: who does anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet
::: ought to be locked up.
::
:: It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
:: jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would
:: otherwise. Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike"
:: without someone getting fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear a
:: helmet.
::
:: They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and other
:: illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I say I wear
:: my helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I would wear a
:: helmet then too.
::
:: Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets? Even
:: riders crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the lights, they
:: must be safe, they're wearing helmets.
::
::: Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the
::: site was run over and killed a few weeks back.
::
:: IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more an
:: argument to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle you use.
::
:: IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory.
:: Kids need them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a
:: very dangerous place to ride). People should wear them offroad and
:: racing (other dangerous places). A mandatory helmet law would
:: address none of those high risk occasions. It would continue to
:: encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets to the exclusion of
:: riskier behaviour.

I'm new to bicycling...only been doing it for about a month....obviously a
newbie compared to you....

However, having a requriement to wear a helmet highlights the need for
safety....as far as I know, people on bicycles are required to follow the
same traffic laws as those in MV.....so what can be done to address safety
further? ..Frankly, I just don't see your point....


::
:: Doug
:: Toronto

Kevan Smith wrote:
:: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
:: from Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
::
:::
::: "Kevan Smith" wrote in message
::: ...
:::: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
:::: from Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
::::
::::: Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
::::: There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
::::
:::: Because the "prevention" isn't.
::::
:::
::: Complete bull****! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely
::: certain I wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be
::: able to type these sentences ... were it not for the protection my
::: helmet provided when I was
::: run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at
::: the intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land
::: on my head. That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors
::: and my orthopedic surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back
::: together, but didn't have
::: to piece my skull back together.
:::
::: Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
::
:: You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped
:: form weighing under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The
:: forces of crashes in the real world are usually much greater.
:: However, since no one measured the forces on your head or that
:: absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the others that it
:: "saved your life" is pure speculation. --

Maybe he did get lucky....however, had he not wored that helmet, his changes
of getting lucky would have been much less.

Bottom line: I'm wearing a helmet.....

Zippy the Pinhead

wrote:

Your heart is in the right place, but you're using specious arguments.

"Many more people" reach into kitchen cupboards, climb stairs and mop
bathrooms than ride bicycles.

You'd need to compare injuries per, for example, hours of exposure to
hazard in order to draw defensible conclusions about the relative
safety of activities. I'm not pretending to know what these numbers
are, mind you, nor am I disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just
pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

No, you miss my point. The OP was asking about a claim that, without any
specific frame of reference, cycling is "dangerous". My examples of everyday
activities that can result in injury or death was similiarly without any frame
of reference. Substitute "tens of thousands" for "many more" and I'm sure
you'll see what I mean. I was just too lazy to look up the stats when I posted
my reply and worded it poorly. My bad.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article
. rogers.com,
says...
If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.

The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
bad.

I would tend to agree with you on a "per mile" basis, but perhaps not
on a "per trip" basis. There's a similarity there between the airline
vs car stats and the car vs bike stats.

37 years of bike riding vs 26 of driving: I have had two accidents on
a bike, one of them with a road rash which healed faster than the
times I've bashed my finger in the car door, and one which left me in
the ER for 1/2 day for observation, but no injuries beyond a bad
bruise, and one accident in a car with no injuries. I have no idea
what the miles of each one, though there are obviously many more in
the car than on the bike, probably even more of a difference than your
10x.

On a number of trips basis, though, it's going to be much closer.
When I was a kid, a bike was my only transportation, so there were
literally hundreds of trips over the years to school (180 days per
school year times 4 years, with some days of multiple trips, plus
trips on weekends for sports events, dances, etc), friends houses,
shopping, etc. Even in college, my car would stay parked for two
weeks at a time while I made multiple trips per day on my bike to and
from classes, shopping, etc.

It's only been in the 19 years since I was out of college that my car
became my primary transportation, and in the last two years it's
decreased as I've been riding my bike more.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:28:47 GMT, "Ian"
wrote:
If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.

Or, most applicably for recreational cyclists, per hour.
I spent a few minutes looking for such statistics this
morning, but failed to; all I could find was a count of
injuries among the whole US population, divided into
activities; I didn't spend much time on it, though.

The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
bad.

Possibly; more likely so for "per hour".

Rule # 1: Statistics can be your friend or your enemy, and can be compiled
to meet the needs of the user;

Corollary 1: The statistics rarely contain complete qualifications
Corollary 2: Statistics are usually gathered to make a point, and
published with that in mind
Corollary 3: Statistics usually apply to whole populations;
individuals are often subject to _different_ risks than
the statistic due to different conditions/people/etc.

Rule # 3: Most things that are fun also add an element of danger.

....especially true when bicycling.
--
Rick Onanian

In article ,
says...
Doug Purdy wrote:
:: "Robert Chambers" wrote in message
:: ...
::: potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone
::: who does anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet
::: ought to be locked up.
::
:: It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
:: jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would
:: otherwise. Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike"
:: without someone getting fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear a
:: helmet.
::
:: They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and other
:: illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I say I wear
:: my helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I would wear a
:: helmet then too.
::
:: Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets? Even
:: riders crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the lights, they
:: must be safe, they're wearing helmets.
::
::: Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the
::: site was run over and killed a few weeks back.
::
:: IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more an
:: argument to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle you use.
::
:: IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory.
:: Kids need them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a
:: very dangerous place to ride). People should wear them offroad and
:: racing (other dangerous places). A mandatory helmet law would
:: address none of those high risk occasions. It would continue to
:: encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets to the exclusion of
:: riskier behaviour.

I'm new to bicycling...only been doing it for about a month....obviously a
newbie compared to you....

However, having a requriement to wear a helmet highlights the need for
safety....as far as I know, people on bicycles are required to follow the
same traffic laws as those in MV.....so what can be done to address safety
further? ..Frankly, I just don't see your point....

The main problem is that too many cyclists DON'T follow the same
rules: they blow through traffic lights and stop signs, ride on the
wrong side of the road, etc.

Additionally, cyclists need to be more defensive when riding than cars
do, because we don't have the armor to protect us if some idiot pulls
out in front of us when we have the right-of-way on the road.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

David Kerber wrote:
:: In article ,
:: says...
::: Doug Purdy wrote:
::::: "Robert Chambers" wrote in message
::::: ...
:::::: potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think
:::::: anyone who does anything to discourage another rider from
:::::: wearing a helmet ought to be locked up.
:::::
::::: It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
::::: jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would
::::: otherwise. Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike"
::::: without someone getting fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear
::::: a helmet.
:::::
::::: They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and
::::: other illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I
::::: say I wear my helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I
::::: would wear a helmet then too.
:::::
::::: Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets?
::::: Even riders crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the
::::: lights, they must be safe, they're wearing helmets.
:::::
:::::: Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the
:::::: site was run over and killed a few weeks back.
:::::
::::: IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more
::::: an argument to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle
::::: you use.
:::::
::::: IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory.
::::: Kids need them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a
::::: very dangerous place to ride). People should wear them offroad and
::::: racing (other dangerous places). A mandatory helmet law would
::::: address none of those high risk occasions. It would continue to
::::: encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets to the exclusion of
::::: riskier behaviour.
:::
::: I'm new to bicycling...only been doing it for about a
::: month....obviously a newbie compared to you....
:::
::: However, having a requriement to wear a helmet highlights the need
::: for safety....as far as I know, people on bicycles are required to
::: follow the same traffic laws as those in MV.....so what can be done
::: to address safety further? ..Frankly, I just don't see your
::: point....
::
:: The main problem is that too many cyclists DON'T follow the same
:: rules: they blow through traffic lights and stop signs, ride on the
:: wrong side of the road, etc.

I see.. I guess I'm fortunate to have found my way here....to learn what NOT
to do (even though, honestly, this seems pretty obvious to me!)

::
:: Additionally, cyclists need to be more defensive when riding than
:: cars
:: do, because we don't have the armor to protect us if some idiot pulls
:: out in front of us when we have the right-of-way on the road.

Right.