A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 6th 11, 08:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:50 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing
up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to
curb.


That's a big advantage of a bike lane, you go to the front rather than
sit stuck behind a line of cars.

I'd like to take a little space from the road hogs. Ideally, I'd
like my own signals, or even signal timings, and I'd like exemptions
from traffic controls along the lines of "Idaho stops". I'd like to see
a reduction in urban areas from the default thickly settled speed limit
of 30 mph to a more reasonable 20. Simple stuff that would make cycling
safer, more pleasant and more convenient.


All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
low speed roads would be a big help.



Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians,
but it might cost something to clear the bodies from the street.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Ads
  #22  
Old August 6th 11, 09:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]


That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live in
Iowa.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #23  
Old August 6th 11, 09:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

Phil W Lee writes:

Peter Cole considered Sat, 06 Aug 2011
14:02:15 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 8/6/2011 11:45 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio?

The ratio is an estimate of the number of years of life gained for every
year of life lost due to cycling. Obviously, it's an estimate, and one
that's complicated to construct.

But researchers have previously estimated the effects on longevity of
various behaviors and environmental factors. This cycling research
attempts to aggregate those effects as they relate to cycling, vs. not
cycling (which typically means motoring).

For example, one factor is breathing various concentrations of polluted
air. (That applies to cyclists, motorists and bystanders - but "Danger!
Danger!" people like Duane make noise about only the effect on
cyclists.) Anyway, researchers can use measured data to estimate the
amount of air pollution inhaled by cyclists and by motorists, and
compute how many years of life are expected to be lost for each group.
(That one's small, and worse for motorists, BTW.)

They can also examine data on the health benefits of moderate exercise,
and use that to estimate the number of years of life gained by regular
cycling. That factor is quite large in favor of the cyclists.

Finally, the big one in most people's minds: They can look at data on
frequency of traffic crashes and see how likely a cyclist is to get
killed or seriously injured while riding. They can work that into the
computation as well. However, it turns out it's relatively tiny. Despite
the fear mongering, loss of life while cycling is a very, very tiny risk.

Again, Mayer Hillman's computations many years ago (around 1990, IIRC)
put cycling's benefit:risk at 20:1. De Hartog's came out at 7:1 or 9:1
for different groups of cyclists. This latest comes out 77:1 - i.e. for
each population year of life lost due to cycling-related factors, there
are 77 years of life gained. Cycling is tremendously beneficial.

The differences in these estimates are large, of course. But no matter
which a person chooses, it shows that fears of cycling are unjustified,
and that we don't need weird measures to reduce the mythical danger levels.


But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.


But every car off the road is one less spin of the wheel, roll of the
dice, or turn of the card.
So increasing cycling at the expense of motoring reduces the number
destined for a big loss, at the same time as increasing the number of
small benefits.


And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)
  #24  
Old August 6th 11, 09:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:

On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]


That only happens a few times a year (at special events) where I live
in Iowa.


Happens every day on my commute home from work... the long lines, that
is - not the queuing up behind, because - not being some kind of kook
playing their sorry traffic game - I can *always* bypass them one way
or another (really ****es them off sometimes, too).
  #25  
Old August 6th 11, 09:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
SMS wrote:
[...]
All good ideas. Turning stop signs into yield signs for bicyclists on
low speed roads would be a big help.



Sure, that would remove some of the extraneous pedestrians, but it might
cost something to clear the bodies from the street.


http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Common%20Crow/amcrow2.jpg
http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Birds/Turkey%20Vulture/turkey-vulture-scS.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Maggots.jpg/220px-Maggots.jpg

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #26  
Old August 6th 11, 09:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
$8/gallon tax would be a start.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)


And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.

I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell 2010M
certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1] or
motorcycle.

E.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #27  
Old August 6th 11, 11:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Simon Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
$8/gallon tax would be a start.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)


And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.


Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?
  #28  
Old August 6th 11, 11:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Dan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

"T°m Sherm@n" " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
an $8/gallon tax would be a start.


I'm all about that, too.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)


And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.


My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.

In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.

I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
or motorcycle.


Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
even that was sometimes sans helmet.

E.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/.


Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.
  #29  
Old August 7th 11, 02:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 5:32 PM, Dan wrote:
"T°m " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages -
an $8/gallon tax would be a start.


I'm all about that, too.

Especially the "I need a big vehicle for safety" (and screw other road
users) people. How about taking driving seriously, so you do not get
into accidents in the first place?

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)


And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.


My relevant experience is significant and leads me to a different
conclusion, even though I have a pretty good idea of the low risk
of head injuries, and of the limitations of a helmet to prevent them.

Well, the foam bicycle hat can work as a decent bump and scrape
protector (assuming you do not land on your face), but the inability to
prevent serious brain trauma is well established.

In any case, I was talking above about humoring the peace of mind that
fledgling bicyclists need to get on the road and eventually gain the
experience that will offer them a more realistic concept of the risk.
It's fine to offer them imformation that puts the risks and benefits
in context, but there is no subsititute for experience, and branding
them unduly fearful suckers won't encourage them to take the plunge.
If wearing a helmet is the placebo they need to get out there and to
stick with it, they'll find out that it's not so scary after all.

I think this would offer much more benefit for those people:
http://cyclingsavvy.org/about/3-part-course/.

Active safety passive safety.

I feel no significant additional danger when I ride a
bike/trike/velomobile without a foam hat, but always wear a Snell
2010M certified full-face helmet on a scooter (powered, not push) [1]
or motorcycle.


Most of my bicycle rides are bareheaded, and when I rode motorcycles,
even that was sometimes sans helmet.

I like having serious abrasion protection.

E.g.http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/6003841817/in/set-72157627344771070/.


Neat bike. I would probably ride that bareheaded *and* barefooted.


With all the nasty stuff on the road, at least sandals are indicated.

Unlike your (or your parents') Vespa of yesteryear, current Honda
scooters have 4-cycle engines, fuel injection, electronic engine
management, and a 3-way catalytic converter. No rattle from "piston
slap", smoke, or exhaust smell.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #30  
Old August 7th 11, 02:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
T°m Sherm@n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 813
Default Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/6/2011 5:21 PM, Simon Lewis wrote:
"T°m " writes:

On 8/6/2011 3:37 PM, Dan wrote:
[...]
And the surest way to get people out of their cars and using bikes
instead is to create dedicated space and bike facilites from what is
now essentially space dedicated to cars - space that bicyclists may
have a *right* to use, but that die-hard cagers think is too dangerous
to ride in, and that cagers think belongs exclusively to them.

I prefer economic incentives to get people of of their giant cages - an
$8/gallon tax would be a start.

(Also, don't berate them as irrational cowards for their choice to
wear a helmet. It takes experience to develop a realistic concept
of the risk.)


And the uselessness of bicycle helmets.


Bicycle helmets protect the skull if it comes into contact with the
road. How is that useless?


Proper motorcycle helmets protect the head to some extent when it comes
into contact with the ground, but are too hot to wear while cycling.

Bicycle foam hats provide about the same level of protection as a thick
toque, unless the toque has a fuzzy ball [1], in which case the toque is
superior.

[1] E.g.
http://artbeat.name/buyredmittenscanada.ca/RedMittenImages/2010-toque-photo.jpg.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.
 




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
Study to investigate if cyclists are putting their health at risk----- one for Geoff. Rob Australia 1 March 29th 11 12:20 PM
More dangerous drivers who put cyclists seriously at risk. Doug[_10_] UK 9 October 22nd 10 09:16 AM
Dangerous, dangerous furniture F. Kurgan Gringioni Racing 0 April 30th 10 06:27 AM
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." Doug[_3_] UK 56 September 14th 09 05:57 PM
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. Richard B General 18 August 6th 06 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 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.