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

Bicycle statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old June 4th 19, 01:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 01:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 01:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 01:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:25:43 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:

"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."


Not sure how the type of car/truck a person drives affects pedestrian deaths. Using a smartphone or being distracted in any manner can and will increase running over pedestrians and killing them. But driving an SUV? How does what you are driving affect whether you run someone over? I'm fairly certain a pedestrian will dies no matter which vehicle runs them over. Tercel car, Miata car, Pickup, SUV, Camry sedan. Doesn't matter. One of the engineers on this forum can figure up the amount of force/destruction generated by a 1 ton, 1.5 ton, 2 ton, 2.5 ton vehicle traveling at 30 mph, or 40 mph, or 50 mph, or 60 mph. I'm sure in all cases it is more than enough to kill a pedestrian.


I have no experience with new cars but my daughter, in her
role as chauffeur to teenagers, found some models unwieldy
in city traffic. Sight lines, overhangs, blind spots vary a
lot from sedans to SUV to mini vans and greatly among the
various brands/models. After a series of unfortunate events,
she sold the last one and went car-free (now that grandsons
are 15 and 17 they can get around the city as needed).

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #75  
Old June 4th 19, 01:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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
  #76  
Old June 4th 19, 02:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 8:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/3/2019 7:22 PM, wrote:
On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:25:43 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:

"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."


Not sure how the type of car/truck a person drives affects pedestrian
deaths.Â* Using a smartphone or being distracted in any manner can and
will increase running over pedestrians and killing them.Â* But driving
an SUV?Â* How does what you are driving affect whether you run someone
over?Â* I'm fairly certain a pedestrian will dies no matter which
vehicle runs them over.Â* Tercel car, Miata car, Pickup, SUV, Camry
sedan.Â* Doesn't matter.Â* One of the engineers on this forum can figure
up the amount of force/destruction generated by a 1 ton, 1.5 ton, 2
ton, 2.5 ton vehicle traveling at 30 mph, or 40 mph, or 50 mph, or 60
mph.Â* I'm sure in all cases it is more than enough to kill a pedestrian.


I have no experience with new cars but my daughter, in her role as
chauffeur to teenagers, found some models unwieldy in city traffic.
Sight lines, overhangs, blind spots vary a lot from sedans to SUV to
mini vans and greatly among the various brands/models. After a series of
unfortunate events, she sold the last one and went car-free (now that
grandsons are 15 and 17 they can get around the city as needed).


As Andrew said, things like visibility can vary quite a bit, meaning
it's easier to miss noticing some pedestrians from the seat of some
vehicles.

But supposedly, another factor is the profile of the front of the
vehicle. When a Mazda Miata hits a pedestrian, the impact is somewhere
near the lower leg. For a Toyota Camry it may be the thigh. In both
cases, the ped's lower body is swept forward and the body as a whole
rotates. The head and upper body hit the near-horizontal hood of the
car, which is relatively flat and soft.

With a taller SUV or pickup, the impact is more whole body, all at once.
The torso and head are much more likely to take a really hard hit. Those
vehicles really are more deadly.

For bonus points, some pickup trucks feature metal guards and bars to
protect the truck from impacts with brush, animals or I suppose
pedestrians. Those guards have near zero flexibility. Some have
described them acting on pedestrians like french fry cutters.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #77  
Old June 4th 19, 02:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 02:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 02:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default 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  
Old June 4th 19, 02:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM.


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.