A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 10, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"

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:

You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340
You will die of cancer: 1 in 500
You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700
You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300
[notice that defining and delimiting "if"]
You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900
You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000
You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000 [notice
that defining and delimiting "if"]
You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700
[notice that defining and delimiting "if"]
You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000
You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000
You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000
You'll drown: 1 in 50,000
You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000
You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000
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.

Why are you lying to us again, Frank Krygowski?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at

http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html
Ads
  #2  
Old April 9th 10, 04:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"

On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:


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.


If you prefer that number, fine. I have no need to dispute it,
because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is
still next to the bottom of the list I posted.

Here's that list again:

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

You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340
You will die of cancer: 1 in 500
You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700
You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300
You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900
You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000
You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000
You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700
You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000
You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000
You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000
You'll drown: 1 in 50,000
You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000
You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000"

McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his
estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. Readers can compare
to the other dangers in the list.

If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant
of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both.

- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old April 9th 10, 05:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
mike[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"

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. 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. 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.
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.

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.

Why are you lying to us again, Frank Krygowski?

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

Mike
  #4  
Old April 9th 10, 05:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
mike[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"

In article 860944df-e6ac-43c4-999d-834cc2715187
@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com, says...
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:


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.


If you prefer that number, fine. I have no need to dispute it,
because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is
still next to the bottom of the list I posted.

Here's that list again:

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

You will die of heart disease: 1 in 340
You will die of cancer: 1 in 500
You will die from a stroke: 1 in 1700
You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300
You will die in an accident: 1 in 2900
You will die in an auto accident: 1 in 5000
You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000
You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700
You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000
You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000
You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000
You'll drown: 1 in 50,000
You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000
You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000"

McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his
estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. Readers can compare
to the other dangers in the list.

If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant
of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both.

Come on Frank, you need to compare apples with apples - at least Andre's
guestimate is moving in the right direction. It is well known (and was
quoted earlier in this discussion) that on either a per km basis, or a
per hour basis cycling is significantly more dangerous than criving. So
for any of us who cover significant amounts of time in the saddle the
risk will be higher than the 1 in 5000 you quote for driving.

Using your 'statistical method' you could equally claim that bull-
fighting is an extraordinarily safe activity as Americans have less than
1 in 100,000,000 chance of dying in the bull-fighting ring.

Mike
  #5  
Old April 9th 10, 05:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"

On Apr 9, 12:16*am, mike wrote:


While Frank's statistics are misleading...


I'm just quoting. They're Laudan's statistics. And Failure Analysis
Associates' statistics. And Moritz's. And National Safety
Council's. And NHTSA's. And Mayer Hillman's. And so on.

Here's more on that theme:
http://www.daclarke.org/AltTrans/SmallRisks.html

... your method of calculating the
risk of dying while cycling is equally flawed. 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. 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.
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. *


As I recall, it's been reasonably well proven that those that cycle a
lot have much less risk per mile than less avid cyclists. Those who
ride in all conditions (rain, cold, fog) have better records than
sunshine cyclists. Those who commute (riding among cars) have fewer
crashes per mile than path riders.

Of course, fewer crashes per mile might be offset by larger miles. It
depends on the details, and on the cyclist. But there seems to be a
tendency for certain folks to say "Oh yeah? Well _my_ cycling is
_really_ dangerous!" We've heard that dozens of times in these
forums.

Unfortunately, we're unlikely to get data that perfectly represents
any one of us. I just take comfort in the fact that over 35 years of
adult cycling has produced only two on-road falls, which seems to be
fewer than most posters; and that even "average" cycling - which
includes all the wrong way riders & no lights riders & signal ignorers
& drunk-from-the-bar riders & gutter bunnies - is astoundingly safe.

Now I'll certainly admit to the relatively high risk of minor to
moderate injuries from, shall we say, "adventurous" mountain biking.
(I was never hurt doing it, despite many minor crashes, but I know
others who broke bones.) The same can be said of things like amateur
crit racing.

But I see no reason to portray any variety of ordinary road cycling as
particularly dangerous. What's the benefit of that??

- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old April 9th 10, 05:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"

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
  #7  
Old April 9th 10, 06:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
mike[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, and Krygo"Facts"

In article 13779a1c-60cc-469e-a5d2-3fa53fb6b201
@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...
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"


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:

I don't want to belabour the point (because I am not in disagreement
with your desire to ridicule Frank's statistics) but dividing the number
of cyclists who die annually by the total number who cycle "at least
once a year" is not a valid way of calculating risk. As I pointed out -
the true risk for an individual cyclist can be much higher than that
figure or much lower (for example for a cyclist who rides once a year).

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.

And I was aware that you never made that claim - but am also aware that
it can be a fairly risky venture at times. Here in NZ the relative risk
of cycling v. driving is similar to that in the UK, but our risk of
traffic injury/death per km of travel is around 2-3 times that in a
typical Western Europe nation - so i definately feel vulnerable,
especially as winter approaches and I spend half of my 120 minutes
daily, riding in the dark.

Mike
  #8  
Old April 9th 10, 06:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"

On Apr 9, 4:55*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:41*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



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.


If you prefer that number, fine. *


Excuse me? Is that how you do science, Frank Krygowski? Krygo, he say,
"Any number is good enough!" Earlier today you claimed that a cyclist
has only a 1 in 130,000 chance of dying on the road, now you claim it
is 1 in 81,500.

I think cyclists might take an interest when their chances of dying on
the roads this year doubles between one post and the next. Any cyclist
who trusts you after this, Krygowski, needs his head read.

I have no need to dispute it,
because if the risk of being killed while cycling is 1 in 81,500 is
still next to the bottom of the list I posted.


Oh no, you've misunderstood again, either because you know nothing of
statistics, or because you're congenitally stupid, or because you're
congenitally dishonest. I didn't say the chances of a cyclist dying on
the road this year is 1 in 81,500. That just sets the upper, most
favourable parameter. Once you subtract from that people who were
counted in the 57m "cycling population" but whose only contact with a
bike was sitting on one in an LBS, where the risk of a fatality is
very low, then we get into the nitty-gritty of determining the risk to
people we would all recognize as
as cyclists. We're heading down past 1 in 65,000 very rapidly, Krygo.

Clearly, cycling for actual cyclists, rather than number-inflators, is
more than twice as dangerous as the 1 in 130,000 lie (which you
already confessed to above) that you tried to pass off on us from your
disgraceful stand on the coffin of a cyclist killed on the road.

Here's that list again:

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

You will die of heart disease: *1 in 340
You will die of cancer: *1 in 500
You will die from a stroke: *1 in 1700
You will die on the job if you're a coal miner or farmer: 1 in 2300
You will die in an accident: *1 in 2900
You will die in an auto accident: *1 in 5000
You will die of breast cancer, if you're female: 1 in 5000
You'll be killed in the line of duty, if you're a cop: 1 in 7,700
You'll be murdered: 1 in 11,000
You'll die in an accident at work: 1 in 26,000
You'll die in a fi 1 in 50,000
You'll drown: *1 in 50,000
You'll be stabbed to death: 1 in 60,000
You'll die from poisoning (excluding suicide): 1 in 86,000"

McCoy (AKA Jute) claims American cycling is "LETHAL" because by his
estimate, its odds of fatality are 1 in 81,500. *


That sentence contains several lies. I haven't said anything is
"LETHAL". I merely asked a question. I answered it myself because the
information you, Krygowski supplied, was clearly fraudulent. The
answer is in a thread called "EXACTLY HOW SAFE IS CYCLING?" But you,
Krygo, like the slimeball you are, preferred to screech the lie that I
think cycling is particularly dangerous. You have to be really
ignorant and probably to suffer a reading comprehension problem too,
to conclude that. You can go see where, well before this, I concluded
something quite different from what you screech I said.

Readers can compare
to the other dangers in the list.


We've already determined, from a source supplied by Krygowski himself,
that per trip cycling is 11 times as lethal as motoring, and per mile
cycling is 2.9 times as lethal as motoring. If Krygo now no longer
wants to stand by those numbers, of course no one will be surprised.
To Krygo any number is good enough, and he'll stand by it for five
minutes before he throws out a new one. Half, double, ten time, ten
magnitudes, why should Krygowski care? All numbers are the same to
Krygowski.

If one really fears the danger of cycling, one must be either ignorant
of other risks, or completely beyond logic, or both.


The problem with Krygo's hysterical and ridiculous claims is not so
much that the ignorant and the wishful thinkers among cyclists will
believe him but that he and his kind brings cycling advocacy into
disrepute and counterproductively stultify amenity and legal
development.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!


  #10  
Old April 9th 10, 08:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default HOW LETHAL IS CYCLING, PART 2: Lies, damned lies, andKrygo"Facts"

On Apr 9, 6:15*am, mike wrote:
In article 13779a1c-60cc-469e-a5d2-3fa53fb6b201
@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...



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"


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:


I don't want to belabour the point (because I am not in disagreement
with your desire to ridicule Frank's statistics) but dividing the number
of cyclists who die annually by the total number who cycle "at least
once a year" is not a valid way of calculating risk. As I pointed out -
the true risk for an individual cyclist can be much higher than that
figure or much lower (for example for a cyclist who rides once a year). *

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.


And I was aware that you never made that claim - but am also aware that
it can be a fairly risky venture at times. Here in NZ the relative risk
of cycling v. driving is similar to that in the UK, but our risk of
traffic injury/death per km of travel is around 2-3 times that in a
typical Western Europe nation - so i definately feel vulnerable,
especially as winter approaches and I spend half of my 120 minutes
daily, riding in the dark.

Mike


Those sheep are getting uppity. If Mark Twain were alive today, he'd
say, Get a kelpie, young man. -- AJ
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 33 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Social Issues 32 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
The John and Chris Show, LIES, LIES, LIES Johnny NoCom Recumbent Biking 3 December 3rd 04 07:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.