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
  #41  
Old June 3rd 19, 05:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 9:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/2/2019 9:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 5:18 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 9:59:43 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/2/2019 10:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/1/2019 7:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/1/2019 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:42:59 AM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 3:02 AM,
wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:22:45 AM UTC+2,
wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 2:48:36 PM UTC-5, AK wrote:

* * Average age of a bicyclist killed on
US roads:
45 (36 in 2002)


Disregarding the "killed" part, this brings up a
question about the demographics of bicycling today.
Are all bicyclists getting older?* Is bicycling
becoming an older person activity?* Are youngsters
not
taking up cycling?* I have friends with children
in the
late teens and 20s age groups.* Some of the kids do
ride bikes.* But others, their kids do not ride.
Yet
they ride lots and lots.* I know on this forum some
people say their children or one child does ride.
But
how many on this forum have children who do not ride
ever?* Yet they do.

All kids in the Netherlands ride a bicycle at least up
to 18 years when they allowed to drive a car. Most of
the times they can't affort a car at that age so the
ride until they earn some money. After that they only
ride recreational or when it is more practical/faster.

"Back in my day" we didn't get driven around everywhere,
it was just
unthinkable that we would even ask to be driven
somewhere
fairly close
to our homes. We rode our bikes. Maybe if it was pouring
rain our
parents would drive us. The times I was driven to
elementary school,
about four blocks away were rare.

In the city I'm in now, it's extremely rare for an
elementary school
student to ride a bike to school. It's still fairly
common in middle
school and high school, but not at the level it should
be. Traffic
around schools is insane─even though most
students
could walk or ride a
bike, they are driven, and sometimes it's only one
block.


I'm not really talking about "kids" riding bikes during
elementary, middle, or high school.* I mean young
adults.
Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately.* Younger
people.* Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
becoming an older and older person activity?* Are fewer
and fewer young people doing the activity?* Thus making
the average age of the cyclist older and older.

I think that's the case, sadly. I think a huge chunk of
American's dedicated cyclists are still the ones that took
it up during the early 1970s "bike boom" when it was
trendy.
(Fashion is powerful.) Those people are now in their 60s,
perhaps 70s.

It's not 100%, of course. We have a new young couple
living
next door and they've got some very nice road bikes. OTOH,
they have a new little kid, so they won't be doing a
lot of
riding for a while.



So bicycles are basically skateboards for old people?

Maybe.

What do you see in your shop? Is business up or down,
long term? What
are the customer demographics?

As I recall, when I was in my 20s and 30s and hanging
around bike shops,
there were no 60+ customers buying nice bikes. In fact,
when one good
friend about 40 years old (a marathoner) bought a really
nice bike, we
thought he was really something.

Folks born around the turn of the century didn't view
bicycling as an adult activity. In the 60s, you were more
likely to see the 60+ crowd at a Moose Lodge. Success was
a Coupe Deville and not a Colnago.


True. But I think now, success is a really great phone and
lots of skin ink.



Unlike a telephone, irezumi last a lifetime.


Well, sorta...

https://www.boredpanda.com/tattoo-ag...aign =organic

And those are just a few years old.

One friend of mine got a tattoo on his forearm when he was in the navy
during the 1970s. At this point, I can't even tell what the picture is
supposed to be. I looks like an elongated bluish-black blob.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #42  
Old June 3rd 19, 06:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Bicycle statistics

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_* 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.


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.* 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.


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.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #43  
Old June 3rd 19, 07:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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.


What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
conflicts with an agenda?

It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply admitted
his mistake.

"As cars have become safer for occupants (due to airbags, structural
crashworthiness and other improvements) the percent of pedestrian
fatalities as a percent of total motor vehicle fatalities steadily
increased from 11% in 2004 to 15% in 2014 according to NHTSA data."

"Inside Versus Outside the Vehicle
The proportion of people killed “inside the vehicle” (passenger car,
light truck, large truck, bus, and other vehicle occupants) declined
from a high of 80 percent in 1996 to 67 percent
in 2017, as seen in Figure 4. Conversely, the proportion of people
killed “outside the vehicle” (motorcyclists, pedestrians,
pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants) increased from a low
of 20 percent in 1996 to a high of 33 percent in 2017."

The other issue is that whether you're a driver, cyclist, or pedestrian,
the data doesn't tell the whole story because you can take steps to
change your own personal odds, and governments can take steps to change
the odds as well.

A cyclist can take steps like increasing their conspicuousness, using
protective equipment, learning how to ride in traffic, and by choosing
routes that are less risky.

Government can take steps by designing transportation networks that
increase safety for all road users.

  #44  
Old June 3rd 19, 07:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default Bicycle statistics

On 03/06/2019 1:16 p.m., 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_* 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.


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.* 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.


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.


My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do. But
yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
majority of samples.

These are concepts taught in STATS 101.

  #45  
Old June 3rd 19, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Bicycle statistics

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:15:09 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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.


What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
conflicts with an agenda?

It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply admitted
his mistake.

Snipped

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. You consistently ignore data whenever it does not support your stance or agenda.

Cheers
  #46  
Old June 3rd 19, 08:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do.* But
yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
majority of samples.

These are concepts taught in STATS 101.


It's not just using incomplete data incorrectly it's also using complete
data incorrectly. For example, carefully choosing the time-span of data
to mislead people about trends is something we've seen occur in r.b.t.
on many occasions. Selectively choose your dates and you can "prove"
that cycling rates per-capita went down, when they really have trended
up. We just saw this sort of thing happen here--you get three guesses as
who did this, and the first two don't count!

You can also design charts and graphs in a way that is highly misleading.

Also look at the source of the data. Is it from an organization or
company with a specific agenda, or is the data reliable? An anti-helmet
organization is going to carefully pick and choose their data to try to
advance their position, we've seen this happening in r.b.t. for many
years by "he who must not be named."

And of course anyone is free to make statements not supported by any
data at all. We just saw this: "I suspect the drop in bike fatalities -
and the _greater_ drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part
to better medical care." Of course the reality is that neither bike nor
pedestrian fatalities actually fell. So someone postulates a reason for
something that didn't actually happen, but phrases it in a way that is
intended to mislead the reader into accepting that the premise is
actually true.


  #47  
Old June 3rd 19, 08:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default Bicycle statistics

On 03/06/2019 3:03 p.m., sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

My complaint is using incomplete data incorrectly and then justifying
that by saying it's the only data we have so we have to make do.* But
yes, it's the lack of data in non fatal cases that make up the vast
majority of samples.

These are concepts taught in STATS 101.


It's not just using incomplete data incorrectly it's also using complete
data incorrectly. For example, carefully choosing the time-span of data
to mislead people about trends is something we've seen occur in r.b.t.
on many occasions. Selectively choose your dates and you can "prove"


Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.

that cycling rates per-capita went down, when they really have trended
up. We just saw this sort of thing happen here--you get three guesses as
who did this, and the first two don't count!

You can also design charts and graphs in a way that is highly misleading.

Also look at the source of the data. Is it from an organization or
company with a specific agenda, or is the data reliable? An anti-helmet
organization is going to carefully pick and choose their data to try to
advance their position, we've seen this happening in r.b.t. for many
years by "he who must not be named."

And of course anyone is free to make statements not supported by any
data at all. We just saw this: "I suspect the drop in bike fatalities -
and the _greater_* drop in pedestrian fatalities - is due in large part
to better medical care." Of course the reality is that neither bike nor
pedestrian fatalities actually fell. So someone postulates a reason for
something that didn't actually happen, but phrases it in a way that is
intended to mislead the reader into accepting that the premise is
actually true.



  #48  
Old June 3rd 19, 08:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 2:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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.


What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so lawyer-like!
Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable when it
conflicts with an agenda?


Such bull****. I'm the one who repeatedly posts data, links, etc.

As I did just a few hours ago. Here it is again:
http://www.ohiobike.org/images/pdfs/...gIsSafeTLK.pdf



--
- Frank Krygowski
  #49  
Old June 3rd 19, 08:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 12:07 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.


Perhaps, but I would distinguish between making conclusions based on
data that is presented as incomplete, or is obviously incomplete when
published, and making conclusions based on data that is complete when
published but where false conclusions are drawn based on using that data
in a misleading way.

Of course in r.b.t. we see both of these happening. I also see this on
an almost daily basis as an elected official, but fortunately I live in
a city with a highly educated citizenry who are unlikely to be taken in
by this sort of misuse of data.

In some cases perfect data isn't available and never will be. There is
simply not going to be a double blind study on every possible subject in
the world--in some cases it's not possible and in some cases when it is
possible there will be no one interested enough to fund such a study. If
a thousand ER doctors tell you that helmeted cyclists fare better in
head-impact crashes than unhelmeted cyclists then you're probably going
to believe them over someone who insists that helmets are worthless. In
both cases there is incomplete data, but in one case there is
credibility of those making the statements. If a police captain explains
to you that you're better off making yourself more conspicuous while
bicycling then you're probably going to believe him or her versus
someone that insists that being more conspicuous is of no value, even
though the data to prove this is incomplete.

  #50  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Bicycle statistics

sms writes:

On 6/3/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

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.


What?! You want to base decisions on actual data. That's so
lawyer-like! Don't you know that using actual data is not acceptable
when it conflicts with an agenda?

It's so interesting when someone proclaims something that isn't true,
without any supporting data, then gets upset when others provide the
actual data. No one would think any worse of Frank if he simply
admitted his mistake.

"As cars have become safer for occupants (due to airbags, structural
crashworthiness and other improvements) the percent of pedestrian
fatalities as a percent of total motor vehicle fatalities steadily
increased from 11% in 2004 to 15% in 2014 according to NHTSA data."


It seems that from 2004 to 2014 total motor vehicle fatalities declined
from 14.59 per 100K population to 10.28 per 100K population, or almost
30%. So I don't see the evidence that Frank is wrong. It's entirely
possible for total pedestrian fatalities to decrease at the same time as
their proportion of total motor vehicle fatalities increases.

The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment. In the past
4-5 years there has been an uptick, which many attribute to cell phone
use. Standards for motor vehicle occupant protection have improved over
the same period, at some expense in outward visibility; one might
expect this to increase the proportion of "outside the vehicle"
fatalities.

Wikipedia has a nice collection of data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year

"Inside Versus Outside the Vehicle
The proportion of people killed “inside the vehicle” (passenger car,
light truck, large truck, bus, and other vehicle occupants) declined
from a high of 80 percent in 1996 to 67 percent
in 2017, as seen in Figure 4. Conversely, the proportion of people
killed “outside the vehicle” (motorcyclists, pedestrians,
pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants) increased from a low
of 20 percent in 1996 to a high of 33 percent in 2017."

The other issue is that whether you're a driver, cyclist, or
pedestrian, the data doesn't tell the whole story because you can take
steps to change your own personal odds, and governments can take steps
to change the odds as well.

A cyclist can take steps like increasing their conspicuousness, using
protective equipment, learning how to ride in traffic, and by choosing
routes that are less risky.

Government can take steps by designing transportation networks that
increase safety for all road users.


--
 




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 12:55 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.