A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 6th 11, 06:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk


"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the
benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His
estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of
life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example,
pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle
instead of drive.

Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling
in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists
themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths
due to air pollution, for example.

The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the
urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio
at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with
bike trips.

A brief radio interview discussing this is at
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous


Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the
statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they
discourage riding.

This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike
share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious
injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus
gets almost no use.)

The paper's free to download at
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf

Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
It's safe enough"?



What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?


It's a Bhutan thing.

I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.


The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.

-- Jay Beattie.




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
Ads
  #12  
Old August 6th 11, 06:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/5/2011 10:42 PM, Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...


snip


Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
worrying. It's safe enough"?


Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?

Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
trying to make it safer.


That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe
enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it
(easily) be made safer -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more
pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy
vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb. I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.
  #13  
Old August 6th 11, 06:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 11:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

Many years ago, the eminent British researcher...


snip


Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop
worrying. It's safe enough"?


Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it?


No, not for some definitions of "we."

Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother
trying to make it safer.


Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and
bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so
dangerous."


If people, currently cycling or not, want to ride with some separation
from vehicular traffic, why stand in their way? To each their own. You
can't control the world, you should stop trying.


Safe enough to dispense with campaigns saying "Riding a bike without a
helmet can kill you."

Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and
to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special
paint on the road.


Why do you care what some people think? I don't. I'm ambivalent about
helmets but utterly opposed to MHL's. What's so hard? Live and let live.


  #14  
Old August 6th 11, 07:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?


The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.


But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.
  #15  
Old August 6th 11, 07:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 1:36 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 17:45, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?


The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger
levels.



Hmm, not very usefull those figures. I had a day off yesterday and did a
ride during a weekday in working hours. It was a nice day and there were
hordes of retired people on the road on their bikes. I didn't count them
exactly but hell more than 50% were on E bikes. It's become a 'plague'
here in the Neteherlands and boy they do dumb things on their bikes.
They still think traffic is in the sixties. It was reported that
accidents with older people are rapidly increasing the last 2 years. Go
figure what only E bikes can do... Andre are you paying attention?

Lou, has to watch cars and bloody E bikes these days.


My father is 92. I wish to hell he was only driving an E-bike.
  #16  
Old August 6th 11, 07:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 1:45 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
wrote in message
...
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the
benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His
estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of
life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example,
pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle
instead of drive.

Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling
in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists
themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths
due to air pollution, for example.

The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the
urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio
at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with
bike trips.

A brief radio interview discussing this is at
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous


Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the
statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they
discourage riding.

This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike
share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious
injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus
gets almost no use.)

The paper's free to download at
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf

Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
It's safe enough"?



What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?


It's a Bhutan thing.

I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.


The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.

-- Jay Beattie.




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---


How is riding a bike while talking on a phone worse than driving while
doing the same? I don't get that.
  #17  
Old August 6th 11, 07:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

Jay Beattie wrote:
"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the
benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His
estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of
life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example,
pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle
instead of drive.

Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling
in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists
themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths
due to air pollution, for example.

The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the
urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio
at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with
bike trips.

A brief radio interview discussing this is at
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous


Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the
statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they
discourage riding.

This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike
share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious
injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus
gets almost no use.)

The paper's free to download at
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf

Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
It's safe enough"?


What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

It's a Bhutan thing.

I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.


The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.




One can only imagine what they find so addictively
compelling. When I thump on the door panel, they startle
like deer in headlights, as if I woke them from a dream.

Dream in your own damned lane, pal.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
  #18  
Old August 6th 11, 07:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Lou Holtman[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 628
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

Op 6-8-2011 20:08, Peter Cole schreef:
On 8/6/2011 1:45 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
wrote in message
...
Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef:
Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged
the
benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His
estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs.
years of
life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example,
pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle
instead of drive.

Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling
in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the
cyclists
themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander
deaths
due to air pollution, for example.

The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the
urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio
at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with
bike trips.

A brief radio interview discussing this is at
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous



Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the
statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that
they
discourage riding.

This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's
bike
share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious
injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and
thus
gets almost no use.)

The paper's free to download at
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf

Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its
benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying.
It's safe enough"?



What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

It's a Bhutan thing.

I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me.


The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more
people on
phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number
of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking
on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding
like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become
the
new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen
to themselves think these days.

-- Jay Beattie.




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
---


How is riding a bike while talking on a phone worse than driving while
doing the same? I don't get that.


It isn't. Every other cyclist here younger than 20 is ****ing with their
smartphone. I could hardly pass a cyclist this afternoon who was doing
whatever on his phone. He took another route and I had to pass him again
a couple of km further. He was still 'playing' with is Iphone not paying
attention. Bloody idiot. There comes a day that I stop and take his/her
phone away and throw it in a cornfield.....


Lou, not really..

  #19  
Old August 6th 11, 07:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 10:45 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
It seems like
everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they
talking/texting to?


It's just too hard to talk on the phone while bicycling because you have
no hand left to steer with when one hand is holding your coffee.
  #20  
Old August 6th 11, 07:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb.


That's a big advantage of a bike lane, you go to the front rather than
sit stuck behind a line of cars.

I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.


All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
low speed roads would be a big help.
 




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
Study to investigate if cyclists are putting their health at risk----- one for Geoff. Rob Australia 1 March 29th 11 12:20 PM
More dangerous drivers who put cyclists seriously at risk. Doug[_10_] UK 9 October 22nd 10 09:16 AM
Dangerous, dangerous furniture F. Kurgan Gringioni Racing 0 April 30th 10 06:27 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. Richard B General 18 August 6th 06 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 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.