A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING? DEPENDS ON WHICH NUMBERS YOU EMPHASISE.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old May 20th 19, 02:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old May 20th 19, 05:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old May 20th 19, 06:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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  
Old May 20th 19, 10:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old May 20th 19, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old May 21st 19, 12:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old May 21st 19, 01:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default 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  
Old May 21st 19, 04:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default 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  
Old May 21st 19, 04:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old May 21st 19, 04:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is cycling dangerous? Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 20 March 17th 14 10:43 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 06:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


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.