Risk assymmetry

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven wrote:
With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as
dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)



I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

Response to Tony Raven:
It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment.

A couple of days after the first round of bombings I was at a barbecue
with my GF's family: her father was going down to London for the day, and
was told In No Uncertain Terms by his wife and daughters that he was not
to travel by tube, or by bus: he had to take taxis everywhere. I found
myself wondering [privately ;-)] what the relative risks per mile were;
but held my peace.

You've probably already seen John Adams' piece quoted at
http://www.velorution.biz/?p=943

, the full article appearing at

http://the-commons.blogspot.com/


--
Mark, UK

"The Internet was a better place when you had to TRY to get on it."

"barry" wrote in message
...
Tony Raven wrote:
With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as
dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)



I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

If only that were so.
I've been driving and cycling for many years and with the best will in the
world and using defensive methods and finally using skilled avoidance
procedures I still got struck by a motor vehicle in an otherwise benign
setting. Short of not cycling at all I doubt I could have exercised more
control.
I'm not put off by the experience nor nervous from it but am more wary.

OTOH when cycling off-road I can & do take risks that are my decision and
have been hurt plenty of times, sometimes the thought of what could happen
if I loose it is worrying but it's still my decision how close to that edge
I ride.
On public roads there is plenty going on that is out of my control.

I do accept that until you've had an incident you may feel as if you have
control. The same can be said for driving, you can regularly drive at high
speed "in control" with minimum seperation but one day some twunt who loses
control can re-arrange your perception of "being in control".


--
Pete

barry wrote:


I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

You cannot control the actions of other road users as has been shown
here many times. Australian Womens Cycling team is the most recent
example. By cycling correctly you can reduce the risk but the
remaining risk is totally in the control of other people.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one.

Are some cycling, though, to remain independent of PT that goes into
disarray when there is an incident as much as perceived risk avoidance?
--
Pete

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:54:42 +0100, barry
wrote:


I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.


[1] Think Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for example.

--
jc

Jeremy Collins wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:54:42 +0100, barry
wrote:


I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You
can't really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you
cycle and how dangerous or safe it is.


I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.


Except you are not regaining control, just maybe a false perception of
control. But in either case we come back to neither is uniquely dangerous.


[1] Think Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for example.


If you knew your history you would know that those were chosen because
of their military, not civilian, value.

Truman wrote in his diary "This weapon is to be used against Japan
between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson,
to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the
target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages,
ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the
common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the
new."

The targets were the shipyards in Nagasaki and Army in Hiroshima. The
fact that the military targets were intertwined with civilians made
civilians unavoidable but they were not the target.

I have spent many sad hours on a number of occassions in the A-bomb
museums of both cities and specifically took my children there last year
to see and learn. These days they are just a 5 minute footnote in the
history lessons and we are forgetting the awful power of such weapons
which worries me.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed
as a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the
much lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing.

I knowingly take a higher risk cycling everywhere rather than, say, taking
the bus because:
a) The risks of either are so small as to be irrelevent to me.
b) Any risk in cycling is offset by it being fun. I'm more likely to
indulge in 'risky' behaviour if it's fun, and less likely to tolerate an
increase in risk if the activity is boring.

I am slightly offended by the "we are all worrying about ... getting caught
in a terrorist bombing." I'm not fussed in the slightest, and only brought
the original threat up in case people got caught in PT foul ups. Heh,
worrying how I was more concerned about delays to peoples' journeys rather
than the end of peoples' lives. Does this mean I've a good appreciation of
relative risk, or am I just a heartless *******? :-)

Mark Thompson wrote:


Does this mean I've a good appreciation of
relative risk, or am I just a heartless *******? :-)


Hearless ******* definitely ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon