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
  #51  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 3:03 PM, 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"
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.


:-) Mayor Scharf gets the gold cup for lack of self awareness, plus the
blue ribbon for hypocrisy!

Regarding Scharf's complaint about "carefully choosing the time-span of
data to mislead people about trends..." he did exactly that when he
linked to an Outside magazine article about one year of high bike
fatalities (840 in 2016) yet did not mention the easily available fact
that the fatality count dropped the very next year. (There were 783 in
2017, the last year available.)

The long term trend for both bike and pedestrian fatalities has been
downward. As shown by graphs at
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
in 1986 there were nearly 7000 pedestrian deaths and over 900 bike
deaths, with a downward trend since then.

In the last few years, both bike and pedestrian fatalities have risen,
but are still far fewer than the 1980s; so for them the question of
whether they've risen or fallen depends on "Since when?"

Bike fatalities in particular are rare, and as with any rare phenomenon
(hurricanes, earthquakes, honest politicians) scatter and random
variations in the data are to be expected.

But if Scharf wants to use just the last few years to claim that
bicycling is getting much more dangerous, what will he suppose has
caused the danger?

Could it be the use of so called "protected" bike lanes? Or perhaps it's
due to daytime running lights? After all, both of those were almost
completely absent during the "local minimum" for bike deaths, around 2010.

Are Scharf's favorite measures making things worse?

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #52  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Bicycle statistics

sms writes:

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.


Pedestrian fatalities (total) in the US fell for a very long time,
although they have increased markedly since 2010. Wikipedia says 6,482
total in 1990, 4,109 in 2009, 6000 in 2018. Cyclist fatalities seem to
track pedestrian fatalities pretty well, although the numbers are quite
a bit smaller.

  #53  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Bicycle statistics

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
  #54  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Bicycle statistics

Frank Krygowski writes:

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:

*Â Â Â Â Â* 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?Â* Is bicycling
becoming an older person activity?Â* Are youngsters
not
taking up cycling?Â* I have friends with children
in the
late teens and 20s age groups.Â* Some of the kids do
ride bikes.Â* But others, their kids do not ride.Â
Yet
they ride lots and lots.Â* I know on this forum some
people say their children or one child does ride.Â
But
how many on this forum have children who do not ride
ever?Â* 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 insaneââ€â‚¬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.Â* I mean young
adults.
Or "kids" as I think of them, unfortunately.Â* Younger
people.Â* Is bicycling, recreational, fun bicycling,
becoming an older and older person activity?Â* Are fewer
and fewer young people doing the activity?Â* 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.


But he wasn't yakuza, was he? Otherwise that tatooist might be now be
sporting less than 10 fingers.
  #55  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

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_* 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.


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.

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.

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?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #56  
Old June 3rd 19, 09:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Bicycle statistics

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 6:17:01 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

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.


Uh-huh.

Data-point 1: I got blown off my bike by a freak wind (Flatside truck drivers who know the crossroads where it happened say it wasn't a freak, it happens all the time, but it happened to me only once in the 20 years till then that I rode there). I had blood blisters from my knee to my armpit. I staggered into the surgery (I then lived above it) and told the receptionist to shoot me straight in to my personal doctor, expecting him to call an ambulance and commit me to hospital. Instead he said, "Nothing much wrong with you." I asked politely, "HTF would you know?" He said, "You walked in here, didn't you?" He told me, "Go upstairs, take some paracetamol, rest." NO RECORD, not even a prescription because I have paracetamol, what Americans call acetaminophen, at home; it's a non prescription drug. I say again, NO RECORD.

Datapoint 2: Avoiding a drunk driver at a difficult H intersection after midnight on a Saturday night, I took a header in the only safe space in preference to being hit by his car travelling erratically at a rate of knots. The helmet saved my face from gravel rash, but both my little fingers were broken. We have 24/365 physician service at a location just up the road from my house, so I walked in to get someone to sign a prescription for more serious painkillers. The doctor on duty gave me some from the samples in his bag, told me to keep my fingers off my keyboard for a week or so, didn't bother to either bandage or splint the broken little fingers, and told me that broken little fingers are a typical cycling injury. (He also said that if I was giving up cycling, he'd buy my all-electronic bike.) Ever since I've been looking at the first knuckle on the little finger of cyclists, and he turns out to be right, it's common to see a bump that one isn't born with. Again, even with two broken bones, NO RECORD, not even a prescription for painkillers.

Contrast a fatality, which by the very nature of it has official paperwork that is routinely compiled and collated by law.

Those bicycle stats for injuries less than fatalities are clearly unreliable.

Andre Jute
Focus group of one
  #57  
Old June 3rd 19, 10:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 1:23 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

The trend in all motor vehicle fatalities over the past 20 years or so
is down, perhaps largely due to better emergency treatment.


More likely due to the presences of a large number of airbags in new
vehicles. Prior to that there were seat belts, shoulder belts,
collapsible steering columns, safety glass, padded dashboards, and
safety cages.

Now many new cars come standard with a variety of collision avoidance
sensors, even on lower priced models. My daughter bought a new Toyota
Corolla LE in 2017. The street price was under US$14,000, but it came
with Toyota "Safety Sense." All sorts of sensors and servos. If you're
drifting out of your lane, without activating your turn signal, it
gently tries to correct you (not like a 737 where it fights you). Some
sort of pre-collision warning if you're following too close, and
automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection.
  #58  
Old June 3rd 19, 11:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Bicycle statistics

On 6/3/2019 4:41 PM, 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_* 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.


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.

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.

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?


OK, this site is fun: Why do people visit emergency rooms? Turns out
(not surprisingly) it varies by month. This shows _product related_
reasons for ER trips:

https://flowingdata.com/2016/02/09/w...mergency-room/

Bicycles is up near the top. Why, there are four months during which
bike injuries outnumber even bed injuries! But if you're getting ready
to use either a floor or some stairs, please watch it. Those are really
dangerous, year round. Wear your helmet!

Again, that's injuries related to products. ER visits are still
dominated by health issues. For summer weekends, here's a list:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/injur...b041db89661c7e

As to more general lists? A hospital system in Texas claims these are
the top ten: https://beaumontemergencycenter.com/...mon-er-visits/

So headaches are #1. Who'd have guessed? But I don't know if that's
national, or if it's specifically living in Texas that causes so many
headaches.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #59  
Old June 3rd 19, 11:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Bicycle statistics

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 7:05:50 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:25:36 -0700, sms

Snipped
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.
--

Cheers,

John B.


WHAT! SMS, do diligent research and present the truth? DOn't you realize that "SMS" and "truth" are oxymorons?

Cheers


Well, it is logical, isn't it? After all;, he is a politician and a
politician's primary interest, just like the rest of us, is to "keep
his job" and since keeping his job involves convincing the proletariat
that he is a really good guy who has their interest at heart that is
just what he does. If this involves massaging the truth just a bit,
well that's God's will, so to speak and thus not a sin at all.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #60  
Old June 3rd 19, 11:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default Bicycle statistics

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.

How else to quantify this unless we make the assumption that some
people act in a dangerous" manner while others do not?
--

Cheers,

John B.
 




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 01:29 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.