|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:27:51 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010..* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. My experience shows nothing of the kind. You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom. Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car. In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way. These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities. I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few. Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists. I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation. Andre Jute Numerate With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Cheers Nope. Those figures are official, and my results are achieved by simple division according to principles long agreed by the vast majority of bicyclists (that your health is worth some extra risk). The amazing thing isn't my numbers, but that a clown like Krygowski was so incompetent with statistics as to ***overstate*** the danger of cycling for so long until I came and did the job right. Everyone, including Krygowski (without thanks, of course), now uses my numbers, in the vast number of cases without attribution, often without knowing who calculated those numbers. You can read my whole article, dated 12 June 2010, at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/THE$20CASE$20FOR$20A$20MANDATORY$20CYCLE$20HELMET$ 20LAW$20(IN$20THE$20UNITED$20STATES$20OF$20AMERICA )$20by$20Andre$20Jute%7Csort:date/rec.bicycles.tech/ow2rIVqZ_DU/pdrY0lrdze8J If you want to discuss the numbers, or the conclusions from them, rather than fling thirdhand sneers from Samuel Langhorne Clemens, I'd be delighted. Andre Jute Good statistics are like a Bach cantata, incomparably more than the sum of their numbers -- Andre Jute, Chairman's valedictory address, MASA |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:35:04 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40. https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2 years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically significant decline in participation. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54 hours each on average. 3.74 million Australians cycle? That's 14.75% of the population. Amazing. I don't even remember knowing more than one cyclist in Melbourne in, to choose a representative year, 1974. He used to cycle from Toorak holding up his spare bike all the way to my house in St Vincent Place because he was so keen to have someone willing to cycle with him. Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually. Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently. If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per 100 million km. According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100 million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians). Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this. Even at a more reasonable assumption of 15kph average for cyclists, cycling would still be slightly less dangerous than motoring, with additional health benefits and longer life... All you have to prove is that cycling is no more dangerous than motoring. There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years, where as fatalities have remained relatively constant. My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists. That could be a case for education, for mandatory helmets working at urban speeds (as in the New York compilation from hospital and police reports at the beginning of the century), or for separation of cyclists, or even as proof that the cycle advocates/government/cyclists/motorists/somebody is doing something right and shouldn't be interfered with. You'd need more information to decide which. -- JS My experience of 30 years' cycling in the countryside has fostered a belief that cyclists and motorists can easily work out a modus vivid among them. So, with many more cyclists in Australia, perhaps differences are now more benignly handled. One oddity here in Ireland, which is in fact beneficial, is that within living memory the police in the country districts had to provide their own bicycle (presumably to chase sheep thieves when they went bush -- some of the older policemen tell hilarious stories of one bicycle being wheeled around and around the station house window when the inspector came on his rounds) and some of the younger policemen still cycle for recreation. Andre Jute Put the police on bicycles! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. My experience shows nothing of the kind. You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom. Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car. In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way. These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities. I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few. Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists. I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation. Andre Jute Numerate With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Cheers Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation (whatever participation means) went up 75%? Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased accidents. Most white papers that I've read regarding participation indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 13/05/2019 8:00 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 4:42:36 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:09:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 12/5/19 8:59 pm, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. In Australia the number of cyclists killed per year has been relatively stable for at least a decade, and is close to 40. https://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2 years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically significant decline in participation. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf In 2017, 3.74 million Australians cycled in a typical week, for 2.54 hours each on average. Excluding the people who cycle less frequently, that is 9.5 million hours of cycling per week, or a bit shy of 500 million hours annually. Ok so I've rounded up to include some of those who cycle less frequently. If those cyclists average 20 km/h, then 10 billion km, or 0.4 deaths per 100 million km. According to BITRE data, Australia's road toll in 2016 was 0.52 per 100 million vehicle km. That includes motorcyclists as well as car occupants and everyone else (perhaps even pedestrians). Cycling doesn't appear particularly dangerous given this. There is one interesting extra piece of information though, and that is that cycling serious injuries (requiring a hospital stay of a couple of weeks at least), have increased nearly 100% over the past 10 years, where as fatalities have remained relatively constant. My guess is that there are more low speed crashes occurring in urban areas. People are trying to use a bicycle for transport to combat car traffic congestion, and are not skilled ninja cyclists. I'm amazed that more people in PDX don't get hurt in bike versus bike accidents. Take the commuter herd, throw in some eBikes, jam them in a two-way chute with some pedestrians thrown in, and it gets pretty sketchy. Morning traffic can be brutal. https://media.chatterblock.com/cache...a1f9febee1.png -- Jay Beattie. Where are the cars? Speed limit sign of 50. That looks like an organized event closed to motor vehicles. Am I wrong about that? Disorganized event -- the Providence Bridge Pedal. I'm just kidding about it being morning traffic, which occurs elsewhere for me. Traffic in Montreal is more insane than usual with some major road renovations coupled with the usual road repairs due to cheap mod asphalt and hard winters. A friend was just telling me his girlfriend who works near me wants to know how dangerous it is to ride to work as the commute is getting ridiculous. I'm not sure what to tell her as I know her and don't think she has, as James says the ability of a skilled ninja cyclist. I suggested she try the route and see how it goes. There's a section with an overpass and junction of two arteries that gets crowded in rush hour. You have to have pretty thick skin to deal with that. My boss stopped riding to work because she couldn't deal with that section. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/14/2019 9:26 AM, Duane wrote:
Traffic in Montreal is more insane than usual with some major road renovations coupled with the usual road repairs due to cheap mod asphalt and hard winters. A friend was just telling me his girlfriend who works near me wants to know how dangerous it is to ride to work as the commute is getting ridiculous.Â* I'm not sure what to tell her as I know her and don't think she has, as James says the ability of a skilled ninja cyclist. I suggested she try the route and see how it goes.Â* There's a section with an overpass and junction of two arteries that gets crowded in rush hour.Â* You have to have pretty thick skin to deal with that.Â* My boss stopped riding to work because she couldn't deal with that section. Duane won't read this, of course. But to further the discussion: If a novice were asking me about riding to work, the first thing I'd do is direct them to some educational material. As I've been saying, everyone thinks they know all there is to know about bicycling, including bicycling in traffic. But there is always more to learn; and novices often have serious misunderstandings. So I'd begin by providing a copy of _Street Smarts_. Either a physical copy or on the web at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm I'd also note that some of the material in there has been improved - for example, three feet of clearance from a parked car is not sufficient. (A new edition is due out very soon.) I'd heavily emphasize riding on the road, not the sidewalk. I'd warn about door zones, right hooks, left crosses and explain taking the lane. I'd also warn about the most frequent crashes, which are caused by road surface problems. Simultaneously, I'd begin by consulting on routes to work. Most people seem to think their bike route to work must be the same as their car route. (Dozens of people asked me over the years "You ride your bike to work??? On the FREEWAY???") Sit down with a map and search for a pleasant route. It's OK if it's somewhat longer than the car route. Pay attention to traffic, hills, neighborhood safety, aesthetics, etc. Also, be alert for handy cut-through short cuts that allow a bike but restrict cars. If there's a bike map of the area, I'd use it as a tool, but not slavishly. No map rates all streets, and rating accuracy varies. Overall, keep in mind that a pleasant route makes all the difference. I'd explore whether the person's schedule might allow commuting at off-peak times. Sometimes 15 minutes earlier or later can greatly reduce traffic conflicts. I'd check out the bike for general suitability and for mechanical soundness. Included would be some bags and racks for carrying whatever needs carried (Briefcase? Nicer clothes? Rain gear?) and equipment like fenders and lights, if rides will be in the dark. I'd advise on buying whatever might be needed for the bike, including pump, spare tube, patch kit, tools, etc. And I'd give a flat fixing lesson. (Not that I ever got very many flats while commuting.) I'd give advice on clothing. Short rides can usually be done in business clothes. Long ones may require changing. But novices may have problems like shoe laces or pants cuffs caught in the chain, dressing too hot (if they're not used to physical exertion) or too cold. Some may even have detail problems with things like glasses or hair styles. I'd do a dry run with the person on a weekend, and spend time talking about very specific details. "You'll need to take the lane here" and "Watch for turning cars here" and "This is where your bike needs to be to trigger a green light," etc. And if you have a day off, I'd consider riding in with the person on their first trip. Maybe showing up for the ride home, too. Above all, I'd try to "sell" the concept. Over my decades of commuting, I always loved the time saving aspect. Sure, it added half an hour a day to my travel time. But it took away half an hour of time wasted inside a car, and gave me an hour of riding. And I never had to consider driving to a health club to exercise. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:14:18 PM UTC+1, duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:33:52 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 3:59:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote: Here's my analysis of US national bicycle safety, published in 2010.* Nothing significant has changed since then. *** HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality. In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough. Compared to a motorist a cyclist is: 11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled 2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US: Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is: 3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding 3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger. *** Andre Jute * A complete version is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...ch/qOFCNhQ1428 . I used the best national figures available then, referring to 2008, but just about nothing has changed since then. My experience shows nothing of the kind. You can't argue with the official national numbers, Tom. Though I DO have motorists acting in a threatening manner quite often after some 40 years of cycling I have been hit by ONE car. And that at a very low rate of speed so that I was more sore from contact from the ground than damage by the car. In the random nature of statistical calculation, if there is one chance in a million of your being hit, and you're hit today, that does mean you can't be hit tomorrow as well I watched Andrew's video on "taking the lane" and you can SEE that in these cases these drivers were breaking the law in every case and in all but one I don't think that any actions taken by the rider would have prevented it other than by being more observant and FAR more willing to modify their speed to allow these obviously stupid drivers to go regardless of right-of-way. These numbers that I'm offering don't differentiate the causes of the incidents leading to the fatalities. I think that the "dangerous" bicycle statistics come entirely from people that do not know how to ride correctly, ride on the wrong side of the road against traffic, ride on sidewalks veering out into traffic in an unpredictable manner and the like. This is somewhat similar to cars being made to look far less safe than they are because of the dangerous driving habits of a very few. Sure, but again, these are the national official figures I'm working with, and they're a compilation of actual deaths on the road, not a sample, not anyone's opinion of the danger, but the hard facts of dead cyclists, 700 and some dead cyclists. I made the original post because Frank Krygowski understated how safe cycling is, even as he screeched that other people were shouting "Danger! Danger!", as he still does in the forlorn hope of shutting up conversation. Andre Jute Numerate With regards to statistics. I think British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli said it best: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Cheers Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation (whatever participation means) went up 75%? That's politics, not statistics, and a pretty low class of politics at that.. A more sophisticated trick, much practised by the Climate Alarm Mob, is choosing a reference period to favour your "preferred narrative" rather than the objective general truth the numbers point to when compared to longterm cycles. Even more sophisticated is using log-log graph paper to either highlight or de-emphasize a huge change, and simply outright crookery is taking the graph and the scale away to leave only the misleading trend lines. That sort of film-flam is easily seen through, and easily fixed by demanding that all results be normalised to an agreed reference, like the easily understood "fatalities per 100 million kilometres" that James uses, and insisting on seeing the raw numbers rather than the graph. In any event, if "participation" increased 75% from some non-negligible base, I would expect the accident rate expressed on some agreed reference to fall because of your next point: Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased accidents. Most white papers that I've read regarding participation indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents. James's numbers claim that one in seven Australians cycle over two hours a week, but that the fatalities remain stable, whereas less serious incidents have increased. He thinks it possible that the increased cycling is by people "without ninja skills" taking up bicycle commuting. Another possible explanation is that drivers see more cyclists and therefore have perceived a need to come to terms with them, hence the average incident seriousness has been lowered. Maybe there's the small beginnings of a cycling culture (which has attitudinal advantages among even non-cyclists, as in The Netherlands) in Australia. I won't be betting my own money on it just yet, but one in 7 Australians cycling is, if true, at the very least a pointer to an amazing future for the Big Country. Andre Jute Potential |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/14/2019 9:14 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote: The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation (whatever participation means) went up 75%? Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased accidents.Â* Most white papers that I've read regarding participation indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents. It would be _really_ interesting if Duane would read just a little bit about what's being discussed. The "cycling participation ... went up by 75%" seems to refer to the Moorehead report on the mile of "protected" bike lane in Columbus, Ohio. On page 8 of that report, Moorehead brags in bold type that "Level of Bicycling" had a "~75% increase." But on page 12, he doesn't spotlight the change in crash counts nearly as boldly. In fact, he never lists it as a percent change. Instead, he notes that in 2011 to 2014 there were a total of six crashes. After the "protection" was installed, in less than two years (2016 to September 2017) there were 24 crashes. So apparently, this facility increased the average annual crash count from 1.5 to over 12. Duane, do you want to calculate the percent increase in crashes? Or shall I do the simple math for you? Hint: The percent increase in crashes is WAY bigger than the increase in riding. The riders are at FAR more danger now. The paper _should_ be available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf That URL works for me every time I use it on every machine. It's worked for other people who have discussed the report online. I apologize if it somehow isn't working for some others. I see no reason it should be restricted by geography. - Frank Krygowski |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 15/5/19 2:06 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2019 9:14 AM, Duane wrote: On 13/05/2019 6:27 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote: The problem with statistics seems to be that one can pick and choose which ones to use to support their position. Like touting that the accident rate went up drastically (whatever drastically means) but not mentioning that cycling participation (whatever participation means) went up 75%? Assuming the statistics were well formed, it would be interesting to compare the rate of increased cycling to the rate of increased accidents.Â* Most white papers that I've read regarding participation indicate increased participation reduces percentage of accidents. It would be _really_ interesting if Duane would read just a little bit about what's being discussed. The "cycling participation ... went up by 75%" seems to refer to the Moorehead report on the mile of "protected" bike lane in Columbus, Ohio. On page 8 of that report, Moorehead brags in bold type that "Level of Bicycling" had a "~75% increase." But on page 12, he doesn't spotlight the change in crash counts nearly as boldly. In fact, he never lists it as a percent change. Instead, he notes that in 2011 to 2014 there were a total of six crashes. After the "protection" was installed, in less than two years (2016 to September 2017) there were 24 crashes. So apparently, this facility increased the average annual crash count from 1.5 to over 12. Duane, do you want to calculate the percent increase in crashes? Or shall I do the simple math for you? Hint: The percent increase in crashes is WAY bigger than the increase in riding. The riders are at FAR more danger now. The paper _should_ be available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf That URL works for me every time I use it on every machine. It's worked for other people who have discussed the report online. I apologize if it somehow isn't working for some others. I see no reason it should be restricted by geography. Certainly the crashes that result in injury seem to have increased significantly more than the increase in participation, however "all crashes" doesn't seem to have changed much at all. Curious. It seems as though the severity of the crashes has increased more than the increase in cyclists. It seems the infra created greater chances of conflict. -- JS |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/13/2019 3:34 PM, James wrote:
snip The national cycling participation survey that is conducted every 2 years since 2011 (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017) shows a statistically significant decline in participation. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2017.pdf The Australian participation study states "Participation is defined as the number of individuals who have cycled for any journey or purpose and in any location over a specified time period." They aren't measuring distance traveled. I suspect that Australia mirrors many other countries where there is a marked increase in both bicycle commuting and longer recreational rides, but a decrease in the absolute number of riders that they could count. It's surprising how many people have a garage with a bunch of bicycles that have been sitting unused for years, and may be taken out for a short ride very infrequently. I recall one "survey" that was doing actual counts of riders and they intentionally derated their count because they said that they didn't want to count riders who were passing by the counting point if they were on an organized ride. Then they used the derated count to proclaim that the lower number of riders was due to a helmet law. It's bad enough to try to draw unsupported conclusions from actual data, but it's worse to draw unsupported conclusions from fabricated data. Be very careful when reading any "studies" referred to on cycle-helmets.com, that site has no credibility. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:37:03 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped Be very careful when reading any "studies" referred to on cycle-helmets.com, that site has no credibility. And due to many of your posts over the years neither do you. At least not on this newsgroup you don't. Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is cycling dangerous? | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 20 | March 17th 14 09:43 PM |
Cycling casualties plummet despite rise in numbers | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 7 | April 6th 12 08:06 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
Help Texas Cycling call these numbers throughout the weekend | Anton Berlin | Racing | 4 | June 25th 09 08:58 PM |
Cycling is dangerous | Garry Jones | General | 375 | November 21st 03 05:52 PM |