#71
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I have two close friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of them) while walking. The other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter went to the ER but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any "walking injury" database. -- - Frank Krygowski Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/3/2019 6:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/3/2019 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means. But here we have, yet again, avid bicyclists arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than we think, because not every bike injury is reported. I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than "we think because not every bike injury is reported." I'm arguing that your statistics are subject to error, including under-reporting. Yes. And that's true of _all_ similar statistics for _all_ activities. Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!) but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any "walking injury" database. What people? Because of the way data is collected, injuries are under-reported -- all injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter. Yes, ALL injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter, for ALL activities. And isn't it clear that "safe" vs. "dangerous" can be judged only by comparison? If a certain proportion of biking injuries are unreported, it's unlikely to change bicycling's rank compared to (say) basketball; because at least a certain portion of basketball injuries are unreported. In fact, there's evidence that biking injuries may be relatively OVER reported. Specifically, in the infamous Thompson & Rivara 1989 paper that claimed (falsely) that bike helmets prevented 85% of head injuries, others pointed out that the kids brought to ER had helmet wearing rates seven times that of the area's population as a whole. (Both rates were measured by the same team, T&R.) Effectively, the parents that bought helmets were probably so scared of TBI that they brought their little darlings in "just in case." The result would have been _over_ reporting. The general climate of fear around bicycling may still have the same effect. Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate). Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools? How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong? More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature of bicycling? Two reasons: (1) bicycling can feel very dangerous unless you do it a lot. My commute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg Those guys should be more out in the lane, but even lane center, its unpleasant, and close, fast passes are SOP. I do agree those guys should be out in the lane. My wife and I did a utility ride today on the tandem, stopping at three shops, and riding two roads that were pretty much like that, except with many more intersections. Lane center all the way. She could tell you how nicely traffic flowed into the next lane to get around us. Still, I could agree with some properly designed bike infrastructure there on Barbur. The lack of intersections would mean fewer opportunities for the typical conflicts, and PDX probably does a better job of sweeping than most areas. However, it's a bit disingenuous to put up such a video and say "See? It's dangerous - or it feels dangerous." Because I'm pretty sure almost all cyclists generally ride roads that are at their comfort level. Most never experience a road like that. With education, they could - but cycling education is not even considered, except by a few. https://cyclingsavvy.org/ Story: I used to lead a series of "Ethnic Restaurant Rides" for our club. The deal was, you showed up at the start and I led you to an unusual restaurant - Jewish deli, Hungarian, Middle Eastern, Irish pub, Puerto Rican, etc., but always a secret until we arrived. They were pretty popular rides. Anyway, one Friday I was doing a last minute route check and found the restaurant I'd chosen was closed because of a gas leak! I had to find a replacement very quickly, within range of the same starting point! I could come up with only one possibility, rather near the starting point. So I worked out a route into the countryside then back... but we had to do a couple miles on a wide four lane with center turn lanes to reach the restaurant. It was absolutely no problem. By luck, traffic was extremely light. Besides, we were headed downhill, doing at least 20 mph with no effort. The pavement was brand new. Of course, I and most others rode lane center, and the few motorists were perfectly kind. But one woman was terrified. She'd been on only a few club rides, although her husband had done many more. She was just convinced that riding on a four lane was by definition life threatening. AFAIK that was her last club ride. I'd call that paranoia. But I think it's triggered in part by the constant "Danger! Danger!" drumming that is attached to bicycling. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/3/2019 6:42 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 08:38:04 -0400, Duane wrote: On 03/06/2019 7:05 a.m., John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms wrote: On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike fatalities - and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part to better medical care. You might well be correct. Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped, at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers would be even worse. "Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says" https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says "Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent, the Governors Highway Safety Association says." Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting while walking. It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture." https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in 1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts, even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom. -- Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should realize) that cycling deaths are likely random. Given that when dealing with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be outliers, this is not surprising. Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities. But this is at best statistically misleading. You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky diving. Or less dangerous than gardening. Actually, I suspect that the dangers of cycling is very largely an individual factor rather than an over all or all inclusive danger. Just reading here we find that Jay has had innumerable crashes, broken bikes, and he even ran over his own child. Frank, on the other hand hasn't had a crash since he rode down the gangplank from the arc. Hey, I had an excuse. That gangplank was slick! I had to descend just behind the elephants! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On 6/3/2019 7:43 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:30:36 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people? Skateboards here are all electrified and these guys can ride a skateboard faster than you can pedal and they pay not the slightest attention to traffic laws weaving in and around traffic. In another forum, one well-known cyclist was talking about design criteria for a vehicle that would cause lots of crashes. He said he'd make it with no seat, with tiny wheels, with lousy brakes, with self-stability low enough that you couldn't ride it with one hand, and make it go fast. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:38:08 PM UTC+1, duane wrote: You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky diving. I didn't look up the stats on skydiving, but common sense tells us that most incidents are likely to be fatal. All the same, a guy at college with me broke his ankle skydiving and survived, only later to commit suicide. I made a few jumps during my military service (we had conscription), low level stuff, supposedly more dangerous, but I was never hurt, nor was anybody from my training group. On the other hand, just to rub Franki-boy, I knew at least one fellow who was killed on his bike. From that, not having looked up the skydiving stats, it would be easy to conclude that skydiving, at least for the properly trained, is safer than bicycling on the public roads. Skydivers, in my experience without exception, wear helmets. Just saying... Andre Jute It's a human right not have one's prejudices undermined by the facts Last time I looked it was 17 deaths per year. I didn’t check the miles traveled though. -- duane |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/3/2019 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:42:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/3/2019 8:38 AM, Duane wrote: On 03/06/2019 7:05 a.m., John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms wrote: On 6/2/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip As I've said before, I think it's often forgotten that medical treatments have gotten much more effective. I suspect the drop in bike fatalities - and the _greater_Â* drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part to better medical care. You might well be correct. Except of course that pedestrian and bicycle fatalities haven't dropped, at least not in the U.S.. So it's a bit difficult to attribute better medical care to something that didn't actually happen though I guess it's possible to claim that without better medical care the numbers would be even worse. "Pedestrian Deaths Reach Highest Level In Decades, Report Says" https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/69919...each-hignearby surveillance camerahest-level-in-decades-report-says "Increased use of smartphones and the popularity of SUVs are among the likely factors to have caused pedestrian fatalities to jump 35 percent, the Governors Highway Safety Association says." Better medical treatment doesn't trump distracted driving or texting while walking. It's the same issue with bicycling. "According to the League of American Bicyclists, more cyclists died on U.S. roads in 2016 than at any other time in the past quarter-century. But that doesn't show the whole picture." https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths Yes, that seems correct in that in 2016 some 840 cyclists died and in 1991 some 842 died, but what they don't say is that during that period from 1991 until 2016, the previous quarter century, in 24 of those years the death rate was lower than in 2016 and in 2017 the death rate was lower than in 2016. It is called "Cherry Picking" and the Wiki describes it as "the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." The information regarding bicycle deaths is freely available on the Internet so I find it surprising that you didn't .research the facts, even a little bit, before trumpeting your cries of doom. -- Sure. But the more you look at "facts" the more you realize (or should realize) that cycling deaths are likely random.Â* Given that when dealing with statistical analysis of cycling accidents, deaths appear to be outliers, this is not surprising. We were talking specifically about fatalities, Duane. So what do you mean by "cycling deaths are likely random" or "deaths appear to be outliers"? Are you saying they're impervious to analysis, that we can't discuss them at all? It's true that biking deaths are rare. That does mean there's going to be very visible variation in the annual count. But there's clearly a long term downward trend over decades. It doesn't take advanced mathematics to spot it. See http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html for example. Unfortunately, the data recording when the result isn't a trip to the morgue is less than adequate so people tend to use fatalities.Â* But this is at best statistically misleading.Â* You end up with nonsense like cycling is more dangerous than sky diving.Â* Or less dangerous than gardening. Damn, you really hate data, don't you? I think his complaint is the lack of data in non-fatality cases. I fractured my hand in a bicycle accident and went to an urgent care clinic operated by the same clinic that provides my primary medical care. I whacked my head, too, but I wasn't complaining of a scalp wound prevented by my helmet. And my treatment would not be part of the Oregon injury data set in any event since I was not hospitalized. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEAS...regon_v2.3.pdf. I would also not be in any of the ER data sets. Actually, all my bicycle-related injuries, including one that got me a CT scan and plastic surgery on my face probably would not be in any Oregon data set, but then again, I haven't done a comprehensive check of the reporting regulations. Without getting into the question of whether bicycle is safe or safer than gardening, one can argue about the completeness of the data -- at least in non-fatalities. And then one can argue about what the data means. But here we have, yet again, avid bicyclists arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than we think, because not every bike injury is reported. I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that bicycling is really more dangerous than "we think because not every bike injury is reported." I'm arguing that your statistics are subject to error, including under-reporting. Who is arguing that cycling is more dangerous than anything? I just don’t like junk science. Why do people act as if this applies only to bicycling? I have two close friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of them) while walking. One was walking on a gravel path in a forest. The other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter went to the ER (where they implied her husband might have beaten her!) but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any "walking injury" database. What people? Because of the way data is collected, injuries are under-reported -- all injuries that do not result in treatment by a mandatory reporter. Injuries below a certain level are not recorded for dozens, perhaps hundreds of activities. It took a special interest research paper to evaluate injuries from gardening, weight lifting, aerobic dance and bicycling (which showed that bicycling had the lowest injury rate). Aerobic dancing has the lowest injury rate for me. Bicycling not so much. Gardening is moving up the list because I got stung on Saturday and have this big lump near my elbow. It's gross. Is anyone recording contusions from slips and falls at swimming pools? How dangerous _is_ it for kids to play tag? Dare we play ping-pong? More seriously, why don't those activities have avid participants whining about their hidden dangers? Why is that whining such a feature of bicycling? Two reasons: (1) bicycling can feel very dangerous unless you do it a lot. My commute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg Those guys should be more out in the lane, but even lane center, its unpleasant, and close, fast passes are SOP. Cyclists have died on that road and been seriously injured. For most people, it's cold comfort to say "it doesn't happen much." And try that at night in the pouring rain. It is scary even to old-timers like me. On those no-visibility nights, I understand the guys with twenty retina-blasting flashers. (2) Bicyclists qua motorists look at cyclists in close quarters and say "that guy is going to get killed!" I can't remember the last time anyone said that of someone aerobic dancing. Really, watching the cyclists in London, I wondered why the mortality rate was not 50%. Also, whether people actually do get killed is almost irrelevant. It's like getting shot at by someone who usually misses. Being shot at is no fun regardless of whether you get hit. I'm accustomed to heavy traffic and herding cars, but most people aren't and would prefer to be out of the line of fire. I am now dealing with high mileage friends who are just refusing to ride in certain places, which I find odd. They just don't like it anymore. A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes. I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do. I think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase. -- Jay Beattie. -- duane |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 9:09:24 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Snipped A lot of my cycling friends don’t commute anymore because they are either retired or got fed up dealing with traffic when they can put more mileage in riding in the country breathing fresh air rather than exhaust fumes. I commute because I can’t afford to retire yet and prefer being on a bike rather than stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I can herd cars, as you say if I have to, but if I can take an alternate route to avoid that I do. I think anyone who wouldn’t must be a nutcase. Snipped -- duane I agree about quieter alternate routes. One job I had in Toronto Canada was near the intersection of Yonge Street and Davenport Road. This was before bike lanes were installed on Bloor Street. My route to that job could up along Broadview Avenue to Danforth Avenue turn left onto Danforth and then continue when Danforth became Bloor Street and ride to Yonge Street and turn left on Yonge. Or... I could ride to River Street, turn left and go onto Bayview Avenue and ride to Rosedale Valley road and then ride along Rosedale Valley Road to Yonge Street. Here's Bloor Street now. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Blo...!4d-79.3740356 Here's the alternative Rosedale Valley Road route. https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ros...!4d-79.3733053 Btw, there's only ONE stop on Rosedale Valley Road between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street. The traffic on Rosedale Valley Road even in rush hour wasn't too bad. If one didn't like dealing with cars there is/was a pave separate lane/sidewalk most of the way. Which route would the denizens of RBT prefer? The one along Bloor Street with its motor traffic congestion AND many squirrley bicylcists or the nice quiet valley road ride? Cheers |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Bicycle statistics
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:40:07 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:41:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: I have two close friends who had significant head injuries plus a broken rib (for one of them) while walking. The other tripped on a sidewalk during her lunchtime power walk. The latter went to the ER but the other just visited her own doctor. Neither would be in any "walking injury" database. -- - Frank Krygowski Are you sure about that? I am not in the medical industry and have no connection with doctor offices or emergency rooms. But I suspect both fill out forms for every single person they treat. And put check marks on various boxes to classify every treatment some how. Head injuries, scalp abrasions, cuts, concussions would all have checkmarks. And broken ribs too. These injuries would end up in some total somewhere. Yes, the information would end up in a patient chart but not necessarily get reported to any public agency for inclusion in an injury data base. A lot of collected data involves ICD (International Classification of Disease) codes, which are billing codes and pretty blunt. They ICDs are culled from reports that are required to be filed with the government, and that's how we get a lot of the stats. Death stats are easy to get because all deaths get reported. Hey, who knew! There is an ICD code(s) for bicycle accidents! https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/V10-V19 I almost had a V11 today with some dope riding the wrong way in a bike lane. SFB. You really, really want to avoid a V15. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
accident statistics: car vs motorcycle vs bicycle per mile travelled? | [email protected] | General | 15 | June 11th 08 03:27 AM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 7 | September 10th 07 02:47 PM |
Bridge Statistics | _[_2_] | UK | 4 | September 4th 07 11:01 PM |
Where are those statistics? | bob | UK | 15 | August 30th 07 12:31 PM |
Bicycle Injury Statistics | [email protected] | General | 8 | August 1st 06 07:33 AM |