Recumbent Accident Rates?

On May 6, 10:23*pm, Tom Lake wrote:

Actually, the word "unusual" isn't important at all; if you disagree
with my editing, then put it back. *

Here's my statement, once again:
"Statistics can (and do) show that ordinary cycling does not impose
any
unusual risk of serious head injury, despite propaganda to the
contrary."

Drop the blathering about hypothesis testing. We know about it
already. Instead, look for some data.

Tell us, for example, how bicycling and walking for transportation
compare regarding the number of serious head injuries per kilometer.
From what I've read, cycling is far safer in that regard.

Tell us how bicycling compares with other activities regarding serious
head injuries per hour activity. From what I've read, it's not
significantly different than many things people do with no worry.

Tell us how bicycling compares with other activities in head injury
fatalities per year. From what I've seen, cycling is fewer than 1%.

Those are the points I was considering when I said that bicycling does
not impose unusual risk of serious head injury. I can post some
numbers, but you'd probably learn by digging them up on your own.

Frank, a "sceptic" doesn't spend his every waking hour posting about
bicycle helmets. *That's called obsessive behavior.

That would be. But I don't know anyone who does that.

I do know people who have become interested in various topics, have
studied them rather diligently, and who now know much more than most
others. Many of those people take part in discussions on those
topics. It's not unusual. In fact, it's one of the important ways
that knowledge is disseminated.

- Frank Krygowski