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 DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 15th 19, 01:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,597
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/14/2019 9:55 PM, James wrote:

snip

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.


Exactly. you would not expect the number of crashes to increase linearly
with increased traffic, you would expect it to increase at a greater rate.

A 75% increase may be worth a few more non-fatal crashes, and the fact
that fatal crashes went down also needs to be considered.

It's amusing when bicycle infrastructure is put in, cycling rates
skyrocket, and someone thinks that this is a bad thing.
Ads
  #22  
Old May 15th 19, 02:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,244
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 1:40:32 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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


As a libertarian (not to mention professionally as a motivational psychologist) I find it interesting that so many cyclists have a religious antipathy to helmets, regardless of what evidence is put up.

But the difference between me and the anti-helmet zealots (hereafter the AHZ) is that I think you lot are entitled to an opinion, whereas you try very hard to deny anyone with even a qualified defense of helmets the right to an opinion.

Andre Jute
Of course, I think even Scientologists are entitled to an opinion, as long as they keep me chuckling
  #23  
Old May 15th 19, 03:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,489
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/15/2019 8:41 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2019 9:55 PM, James wrote:

snip

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.


Exactly. you would not expect the number of crashes to increase linearly
with increased traffic, you would expect it to increase at a greater rate.

A 75% increase may be worth a few more non-fatal crashes, and the fact
that fatal crashes went down also needs to be considered.


Fatal crashes dropped from one to zero where that "protected" bike lane
was installed. But fatal bike crashes are extremely rare, and thus it's
absolutely typical for one such crash to be followed by zero.

In my area, we've _never_ had two fatal bike crashes at the same
location. That means every one of this area's fatal crash locations
demonstrated the same result, with no change in infrastructue.
It's amusing when bicycle infrastructure is put in, cycling rates
skyrocket, and someone thinks that this is a bad thing.


Such a liar!

I'm not saying a 75% increase in riding is a bad thing. It proves that
enough "this is safe!" propaganda can lure cyclists onto a facility,
with many of them probably choosing that over the streets they used before.

But if that 75% increase comes with an over 700% increase in crashes,
that is a bad thing. The facility is NOT safer. Those cyclists are at
far greater risk than they were before.

Incidentally, I know a bicycle advocate in Columbus who objected rather
strongly to that "protected" bike lane design. She predicted quite the
crash rate would soar. But even she was surprised at the magnitude of
the increase.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #24  
Old May 15th 19, 04:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,489
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/15/2019 8:36 AM, sms wrote:

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.


Scharf is a politician with a politician's skill at blatant lying.

What actually happened: After Australia implemented state-by-state all
ages mandatory helmet laws (under pressure from the national
government), some agencies conducted surveys of bicycle use.

From Robinson, "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws," Accident
Analysis and Prevention V. 28, no. 4, pp. 463-475:
"Table 4 shows, in the first year of the Victorian helmet law, the
reduction in numbers counted was 5 times greater than the increase in
cyclists wearing helmets. In the second year, a bicycle rally happened
to pass through one of the 64 [counting] sites. Numbers of cyclists at
that particular site increased from 72 in 1991 to 451 in 1992, 81% of
the total increase. Despite the 1992 rally, compared with before the
law, numbers counted decreased by almost as much as the increase in
numbers helmet wearing..."

Scharf somehow pretends there was no decrease in cycling. I suspect he
hasn't really read any of the relevant literature.

Be very careful when reading any "studies" referred to on
cycle-helmets.com, that site has no credibility.


Be even more careful listening to lying politicians.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old May 15th 19, 04:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,406
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 10:53:39 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2019 8:41 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2019 9:55 PM, James wrote:

snip

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.


Exactly. you would not expect the number of crashes to increase linearly
with increased traffic, you would expect it to increase at a greater rate.

A 75% increase may be worth a few more non-fatal crashes, and the fact
that fatal crashes went down also needs to be considered.


Fatal crashes dropped from one to zero where that "protected" bike lane
was installed. But fatal bike crashes are extremely rare, and thus it's
absolutely typical for one such crash to be followed by zero.

In my area, we've _never_ had two fatal bike crashes at the same
location. That means every one of this area's fatal crash locations
demonstrated the same result, with no change in infrastructue.
It's amusing when bicycle infrastructure is put in, cycling rates
skyrocket, and someone thinks that this is a bad thing.


Such a liar!

I'm not saying a 75% increase in riding is a bad thing. It proves that
enough "this is safe!" propaganda can lure cyclists onto a facility,
with many of them probably choosing that over the streets they used before.

But if that 75% increase comes with an over 700% increase in crashes,
that is a bad thing. The facility is NOT safer. Those cyclists are at
far greater risk than they were before.

Incidentally, I know a bicycle advocate in Columbus who objected rather
strongly to that "protected" bike lane design. She predicted quite the
crash rate would soar. But even she was surprised at the magnitude of
the increase.

--
- Frank Krygowski


In my opinion the BIGGEST problem with completely segregated bike paths beside roads is that that segregation REMOVES the bicyclists from motorists awareness. Thus at every crossing the bicyclist is suddenly where the driver isn't expecting them any more. It's even worse if there is a lane for parked cars between the segregated bicycle lane and the traffic lane(s).

Cheers
  #26  
Old May 15th 19, 08:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,489
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/15/2019 11:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 10:53:39 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2019 8:41 AM, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2019 9:55 PM, James wrote:

snip

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.

Exactly. you would not expect the number of crashes to increase linearly
with increased traffic, you would expect it to increase at a greater rate.

A 75% increase may be worth a few more non-fatal crashes, and the fact
that fatal crashes went down also needs to be considered.


Fatal crashes dropped from one to zero where that "protected" bike lane
was installed. But fatal bike crashes are extremely rare, and thus it's
absolutely typical for one such crash to be followed by zero.

In my area, we've _never_ had two fatal bike crashes at the same
location. That means every one of this area's fatal crash locations
demonstrated the same result, with no change in infrastructue.
It's amusing when bicycle infrastructure is put in, cycling rates
skyrocket, and someone thinks that this is a bad thing.


Such a liar!

I'm not saying a 75% increase in riding is a bad thing. It proves that
enough "this is safe!" propaganda can lure cyclists onto a facility,
with many of them probably choosing that over the streets they used before.

But if that 75% increase comes with an over 700% increase in crashes,
that is a bad thing. The facility is NOT safer. Those cyclists are at
far greater risk than they were before.

Incidentally, I know a bicycle advocate in Columbus who objected rather
strongly to that "protected" bike lane design. She predicted quite the
crash rate would soar. But even she was surprised at the magnitude of
the increase.

--
- Frank Krygowski


In my opinion the BIGGEST problem with completely segregated bike paths beside roads is that that segregation REMOVES the bicyclists from motorists awareness. Thus at every crossing the bicyclist is suddenly where the driver isn't expecting them any more. It's even worse if there is a lane for parked cars between the segregated bicycle lane and the traffic lane(s).


Agreed. These things greatly complicate interactions at intersections,
which is where most crashes happen. They do that in order to reduce "ran
over from behind" crashes, which are relatively rare.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #27  
Old May 16th 19, 12:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,975
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 15/5/19 10:40 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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.


The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to download
from the Austroads website - after you register. The only reason I
posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you don't need to
register to download it from them.


https://austroads.com.au/about-austroads

"Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road transport and
traffic agencies."

Mostly state government roads departments and such.

Here is the link to the Austroads website where the NCPS comes from.

https://austroads.com.au/publication...avel/ap-c91-17

We are eagerly awaiting the 2019 results. The survey has been
conducted, just not yet published.

--
JS


  #28  
Old May 16th 19, 01:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,597
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/15/2019 4:23 PM, James wrote:

snip
The National Cycling Participation Survey results are free to download
from the Austroads website - after you register.* The only reason I
posted a link from cycle-helmets.com is because you don't need to
register to download it from them.


Okay, fair enough. It's just that everyone gets very wary with a
reference includes cycle-helmets.com, a site that is well-known for
intentionally misinterpreting data, ignoring data that doesn't fit their
agenda, and constantly trying to equate correlation and causation. If
cycling rates fall, no matter what the actual reason, if there was a
helmet law then they insist that the helmet law was the cause. The fact
is that cycling rates rise and fall for a large number of reasons. One
poster recently pointed out that new bicycle infrastructure caused a 75%
increase in the number of riders. Sometimes, as happened in China, it's
vast improvements in public transit that drastically reduced cycling
rates. Sometimes it's economic factors. Sometimes it's weather.
Sometimes it's demographic shifts.

The thing that jumps out immediately about that "survey" is the
statement "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." Cycle around the block once a year, and you're
counted as a cyclist. Decide you're too old the next year and don't take
out the bike, and you're not counted.

A proper survey would be much more specific and look at annual distance
and number of cycling days per year. While the "Participation Survey"
can be interesting, the problem with it are the organizations and
individuals that try to draw false conclusions from it.
  #29  
Old May 16th 19, 02:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,975
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 15/5/19 11:41 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 1:40:32 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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


As a libertarian (not to mention professionally as a motivational psychologist) I find it interesting that so many cyclists have a religious antipathy to helmets, regardless of what evidence is put up.

But the difference between me and the anti-helmet zealots (hereafter the AHZ) is that I think you lot are entitled to an opinion, whereas you try very hard to deny anyone with even a qualified defense of helmets the right to an opinion.



I don't think anyone I know is an anti-helmet zealot. Some people
zealously disagree with mandating helmet use for cycling. They would be
anti-MHL zealots. I m probably one of them.

There are also MHL zealots and plain vanilla helmet zealots.

Helmets are a gloriously polarising subject.

--
JS
  #30  
Old May 16th 19, 03:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,597
Default HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.

On 5/15/2019 6:33 PM, James wrote:

snip

I don't think anyone I know is an anti-helmet zealot.** Some people
zealously disagree with mandating helmet use for cycling.* They would be
anti-MHL zealots.* I m probably one of them.

There are also MHL zealots and plain vanilla helmet zealots.

Helmets are a gloriously polarising subject.


I think that most of us here do not favor mandatory helmet laws. But by
the same token, most of us here don't deny the benefit that helmets
provide in head-impact crashes, and we recognize that most people choose
to wear them.

An AHZ makes up strange stories about walking helmets and gardening
helmets, insisting that any activity with any element of danger should
have safety equipment that brings the level of risk to an equal level
with bicycling.

An AHZ insists that cyclists that choose to wear helmets are
discouraging others from cycling because the presence of a helmet may
indicate to others that cycling is especially dangerous.

There have been plenty of AHZs posting in r.b.t.. You may not know any
AHZs personally, nor do I. But they do exist, and they are very vocal.
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.