|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 08:35:05 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Sun, 19 May 2019 21:04:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/19/2019 3:31 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 5/19/2019 2:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/19/2019 11:44 AM, jbeattie wrote: Uh oh, bicycles are suicide machines in the EU! Particularly where there is developed bicycle infrastructure. https://tinyurl.com/y4r935l4 NL is like the killing fields. The author serves a few tidbits of real knowledge in a stew of misinformation. I'd be interested in his source for "In the U.S., as in Europe, the car’s culpability is mostly a myth: just 29 per cent of bicycle fatalities involved autos." I think that's completely wrong. As measured by actual court decisions or merely by a disinterested omniscient being? I can see different conclusions drawn using different filters/methods. I'm not talking about the culpability part. I'm talking about the claim that just 29 percent involved autos at all. Even if the cyclist were riding at night with no lights going the wrong way and killed himself by riding into a car that was barely moving, that fatality would still involve an auto. You are straining just a bit there, aren't you? What about a parked auto? Or even an abandoned auto with no wheels? But I did come across some statistics that might be of interest. From CYCLING FACTS, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KIM) Total numbers of bicycle deaths as percent of total Road Deaths - 30% Total numbers of motor car/truck deaths as percent of total road deaths- 39% Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle-auto collisions- 11% Total percent of serious road injuries as bicycle - without auto collisions - 52% Added: There was no correlation between bicycle deaths and bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. There were two charts, one labeled "Fatalities" and the second "Serious Injuries". There was a reference to a study "40 Schepers, P. et al. (2017), \u201cBicycle fatalities: trends in crashes with and without motor vehicles in The Netherlands.\u201d Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 46: 491-499." the abstract of which is at https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69847816300699 -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/19/2019 9:18 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
I'm bored with all this iterative talk. We're no further forward than we were when I arrived here c2010. Actually, we are ahead of when Jute first arrived in 2010. In one of his first appearances, he claimed his sit-up-and-beg bike was super-aerodynamic because he had coasted it down a local hill at something like 50 mph. Eventually, he added to the fiction by saying he had paid a local farmer to bolt a huge plywood sheet across the back of a farm truck, then drive it down the hill just in front of Jute to give him a windbreak, after first towing Jute up to speed with a tow rope. See? It's all cartoon-level fiction, but the fiction is much more detailed. Progress! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:12:37 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. While you statistics put everything in pretty start contrast then attempting to call someone stupid isn't earning you any points. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:17:04 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:12:37 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. While you statistics put everything in pretty start contrast then attempting to call someone stupid isn't earning you any points. Tom, statistically, you did not have any of your head injuries. They were imagined -- no, wait, they were caused by you total inexperience and stupidity. Good cyclists never have crashes or injuries. Cycling is no more dangerous than sleeping. Next time you ride, try wearing these: https://tinyurl.com/yy8eohzn and call these people in Portland who actually ride with mattresses. https://www.mattresslot.com/about/delivery-by-bike/ You can ride and sleep and combine two super-low-risk activities. -- Jay Beattie. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 10:17:01 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:12:37 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: I see. Nonsense because that ~759 bicyclists die each year? Because some 737 die from falling out of bed? Or nonsense because it doesn't agree with your highly political opinion? I suggest that the latter is the most likely truth. While you statistics put everything in pretty start contrast then attempting to call someone stupid isn't earning you any points. "Pretty start contrast"? But I'm not trying to earn points, I was simply trying to get the guy to tell the truth. -- cheers, John B. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/20/2019 5:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Tom, statistically, you did not have any of your head injuries. They were imagined... IOW: "Math is HARD!!!" -- - Frank Krygowski |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
See what I mean? Krygowski is still telling the same lies he told in 2010, still the same sneering scold who can never get his facts straight, who still claims that from 4000 miles away he knows the roads I ride every day better than I do.
Go on then, Franki-boy, 1. Show us where I said anything about "50mph". 2. Show us where I said anything about the bike being "super-aerodynamic". 3. Show us where I said anything about "a local farmer [bolting] a huge plywood sheet across the back of a farm truck." Oh, by the way, Krygowski, on a bicycle conference, you get the bike wrong. That's a special class of d-u-m-b. Here's a hint: the bike in question wasn't my Utopia Kranich. Do try to get something right: anything at all would be a relief from your unmitigated catalogue of errors. That's three strikes already, Franki-boy, and you're out. There are more lies in your few dull sentences but we can come to them if you have the stamina for it. If you think I lied, prove it. And if you don't like the way I tell a story, stick your outrage where it hurts most. HTF did any educational establishment, even a third-rate state college, ever let this malignant clown Frank Krygowski loose on the unformed minds of vulnerable children? Andre Jute One wonders what the jerk-off Krygowski feared so much about me that on my arrival he tried to exclude me. And, since he's still going on about it ten years later, why there is nothing else of interest in Krygowski's life except his outsized obsession with me. On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 5:46:59 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/19/2019 9:18 PM, Andre Jute wrote: I'm bored with all this iterative talk. We're no further forward than we were when I arrived here c2010. Actually, we are ahead of when Jute first arrived in 2010. In one of his first appearances, he claimed his sit-up-and-beg bike was super-aerodynamic because he had coasted it down a local hill at something like 50 mph. Eventually, he added to the fiction by saying he had paid a local farmer to bolt a huge plywood sheet across the back of a farm truck, then drive it down the hill just in front of Jute to give him a windbreak, after first towing Jute up to speed with a tow rope. See? It's all cartoon-level fiction, but the fiction is much more detailed. Progress! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 07:24:18 +0700, John B.
wrote: After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent an almost unimaginable number of injuries. I was told that the State of New York proposed doing exactly that. The Mohawk-Hudson Wheelmen's goverment-relations committee is said to have been organized after a legislator came to a bike-club meeting to tell them about the new law that was going to solve all their problems. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On Mon, 20 May 2019 23:16:39 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote: On Mon, 20 May 2019 07:24:18 +0700, John B. wrote: After some consideration I realized that if the U.S. would simply ban all bicycles there would be a savings of ~750 lives a year and prevent an almost unimaginable number of injuries. I was told that the State of New York proposed doing exactly that. The Mohawk-Hudson Wheelmen's goverment-relations committee is said to have been organized after a legislator came to a bike-club meeting to tell them about the new law that was going to solve all their problems. While my previous post was a bit tongue in cheek there is the fact that approximately 750 people are killed each year riding those two wheel things. I granted that a significant portion, perhaps a third or more, die due to their own foolishness, but in the New America isn't it seen as the government's responsibility to protect even the foolish from themselves? -- cheers, John B. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.
On 5/19/2019 6:56 AM, Duane wrote:
snip Maybe he’d prefer if you talked about the percentage of cyclists who died cycling compared to the percentage of people that sleep in beds who died falling out of beds. Not that I think either activity is very dangerous but this nonsense is getting boring. It is boring, but the only way the "Danger Danger" crowd, can argue is by taking things completely out of context. Comparing cycling to sleeping in a bed, gardening, etc., and attempting to draw conclusions from statistical differences in injury rates simply proves just how incredibly weak their logic is. No one that believes that wearing a helmet is a good idea is claiming that riding a bike is exceptionally dangerous, nor is anyone claiming that a helmet eliminates all chance of any head injury. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |