Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

SMS wrote:
peter wrote:

His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
remarks not withstanding.

There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted.

Oh?

I don't recall ever seeing _anyone_ make such a claim, except for
perhaps yourself. I believe it, too, is a figment of your imagination.

Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. Just give us proper citations.


Even if you can't give us proper citations of any real research papers,
you ought to at _least_ be able to give us proper citations of an
internet post you clearly believe you remember!

We're waiting, Steven.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
James Annan wrote:

Mind you, I didn't read it all that carefully - I'm not going to trawl
through threads hoping to find something vaguely related, I simply asked
if you could provide some examples of (reinstating what you snipped):

Ah, you just expect someone else to trawl through the threads for you.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Indeed, I had no intention of wasting my time on trying to verify some
claim that seems to be false - and which of course in principle cannot
be falsified, only left unsupported (as it is at present).

I was naively assuming that when you stated:

It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
gave it up when the MHL was enacted.

then you would actually be able to provide some evidence of "the posts"
that "you see". Instead we all see that you were blowing smoke. Thanks
for clearing that up.

James

SMS wrote:
peter wrote:

His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

Don't misinterpret what I wrote, I never claimed that, your snide
remarks not withstanding.

There have been statements from the AHZs that this has happened in
countries with MHLs, or it will happen if MHLs are adopted. If they
really believe this, then their claim that the injury/accident rate has
fallen in lockstep with the alleged declining number of cyclists (also
unproven) doesn't take into account the declining experience level. You
can go through the helmet threads on Google Groups and look for those
posts if you wish, I'm not doing it for you.

Maybe you should think about stopping with the insults, as it doesn't
help your position.

Maybe you should think of once, just once, for a change, backing up you
claims and allegations with one iota of evidence. Then the insults
might abate if not stop. Until then.

You still have not addressed the question I raised of why you think a
change in the experience profile of cyclists would exactly compensate
for the protective effect of helmets in each the Australian states and
in several countries where MHL's were introduced. Could it be that both
were zero rather than your fanciful notion that each society magically
reacted in a way just sufficient to nullify the helmet effect in their
country

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

In article .com,
) wrote:

We're waiting, Steven.

I hope you're not holding your breath, Frank...

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on a bike.

peter wrote:
gds wrote:
[SMS wrote:
It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
gave it up when the MHL was enacted.]

See the discusion seveal years ago at:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.b...ab92bc8b9fb83a

As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
examples, even if not very good ones.

Yes, typical meandering USENET thread. But are there actually any
examples in there that back up Steven's claim? I.e. someone posting
who says that they personally gave up cycling after 20 or more years
because of a MHL?

His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims


I merely pointed to the thread as a discussion of the point in
question. Does anyone see a claim by me of anything else? Does anyone
notice my comment that it wasn't a very good example?

BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding or
not after a MHL is enacted. Never claimed to have any. If you read my
posts carefully you will note that I say such things as "interesting
observation" and what it might indicate if so.

But again several of you want to mis quote and misconsture what is
being said. So it really makes no difference what one actually says.

gds wrote:

But again several of you want to mis quote and misconsture what is
being said.

Please provide references and citations to prove this.

wrote:

The main reason for the "rough road" is that there are too few serious
bike injuries to get ahold of statistically.

No, there are plenty of serious bike injuries to get ahold of
via the NEISS. The real reason for the rough road is
it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to estimate how
much total cycling occurs each year. Therefore it is
incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to estimate
*rates* of injury and death from cycling. Which means
it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to compare
cycling to other activities based on these rates.

As I mentioned the other day, the paper by Ji, Ming et. al., "Trends in
helmet use and head injuries in San Diego County", Accident Analysis &
Prevention, Vol. 38, pp. 128 - 134, gives data to indicate that less
than 0.01% of that county's population had a serious bike injury in a
typical year. And that's a county with excellent year-round cycling
weather. I'd suspect the average across the US (or most other
countries) is even lower.

I guess it depends on how you define 'serious injury,'
doesn't it? .01% is 100-per-million population, or what
about 40,000 every year in the US. I have already
given an estimate, based on my own study of the
NEISS raw data, that approximately 300,000 'real
injuries' occur each year in the US. So your study
must define 'serious injury' rather narrowly--
hospital admissions?

No surveys, but I personally have been well
acquainted enough with the accident and medical
history of perhaps 100 messengers to tell you
a thing or two about how it all shakes out.
For instance, it is obvious that the accident rate
of rookie messengers is astronomical compared
to the veterans. It is also obvious that most of
the veterans ride much longer between serious
wrecks than the 30,000 or so miles of LAB members
in the Moritz survey.

I'm sorry, but no thinking audience will accept the "It's obvious to
_me_..." statements from someone who's demonstrated such bias.

You're very confusing. How does my claim that
veteran bike messengers typically ride 50,000 to
100,000 miles between serious injuries, 2-3 times
safer than the rates seen for older experienced
riders in Moritz and Kifer, fit in with my supposed
'bias?' If I was trying to make cycling sound
dangerous, would I make such a claim? Please
explain.




Compare,
for instance, to Moritz' survey of LAB members
with an average of 17 years riding experience,
which found them injuring themselves about
every 30,000 miles (iirc).

Something like that. Skinned knees mostly, remember?

That is incorrect. According to Moritz '96 survey of
LAB members (averaging almost 15 years cycling
experience), almost 10% reported suffering some
*serious* crash in the previous year.

Read it again. The definition of "serious crash" was "resulting in at
least $50 of property damage or medical expense." IOW, if a person
didn't unclip at a traffic light, fell to the right and smashed his
derailleur, that could be termed "serious."

Oh jeez. People do not 'smash' their derailers when
falling over at a traffic light! Ride much? A $50 wreck
is also likely to result in injury to the rider, as is
reflected in that study.

IIRC, there were no guidelines given for the definition of non-serious
accident, except "less than $50 damage." IOW, the responses could
include toppling over while attempting a track stand, or falling off
the mountain bike when riding through sand.

Not bloody likely.

As in other parts of this discussion, "minor" accidents are
inconsequential. The only ones who focus on them are fearmongers.

Ah, 'fearmonger.' There it is.

YOU are the one focusing on minor injuries, not me. I am
focusing on serious injuries, or, as Kifer calls them
'real injuries.' I do not give two hoots about cycling's
incredibly high rate of superficial injury. But you keep
bringing it up. I guess that makes you the fearmonger.

His "real injuries" included mere scrapes, Robert. Here's a quote:

"Q. 19: When asked about the nature of their most serious
cycling-related injury during the last 12 months,
161 said there was no accident or no injury that was a problem the next
day.
53 said they experienced road rash or other significant abrasions.
4 said they experienced minor concussion resulting in nothing worse
than a headache.
9 said they had a puncture wound, simple fracture, or broken bone.
2 said they had a major concussion resulting in loss of consciousness
or other short-term brain injury.
2 said they had a compound or skull fracture, and/or multiple broken
bones and non-permanent injuries.
None said they had a permanent injury or disability of any kind."

There were 22 riders (~10%) in that survey who reported a
'real injury' in the past year. Says Kifer, "I was very clear in
defining this injury, that it must be a real inury, NOT JUST A VISIT
TO THE DOCTOR, and create problems that would require
at least a few days to heal.' According to his count above,
5 of these 22 were referring to 'road rash or other significant
abrasions.' What you seem unwilling to understand is that
some road rash incidents can be quite serious, and may even
require a trip to the ER. (Kifer's statement that 10 of the 22
were road rash is apparently a math error on his part.)

If we remove the really minor punctures (chainring tooth in calf?) and
the really minor broken bones (hairline fracture of little finger?)
you've got very little to worry about in that list.

Interesting analysis there, Frank. I invite everyone here
to read the survey and come up with their own. Wow.

www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm

And Ken was careful to note the probability of distortion from the
small sample size and self-selection of the respondents. IOW, of all
the people who visited Ken's site while the survey was in process, the
ones who had crashed would likely be more interested in something
saying "safety." Those who had never crashed probably went elsewhere
in the site, looking for information about how to camp for free, make
one's own panniers, etc.

What he says is that roughly 2/3 of respondents were
touring cyclists on touring bikes who heard of the survey
in the TOURING section of his website. IOW, sure it's
a self-selecting group, but not self-selecting in the way
you claim, but the opposite direction.


Citation?

Read it again. 'Old messengers I know.' I know them
well enough to know their rates of serious injury.

IOW, no citation. Just the personal opinion of someone who likes to
make cycling sound dangerous.

Again, how does this make cycling sound dangerous?
You're all twisted up again.


And there you have it, folks. Any time you are passed (in any
direction, at any speed) by a vehicle at any sort of intersection
(driveway?), Robert thinks it's "plenty dangerous."

According to Robert, you must ride in fear!

According to Robert, you must ride with a pretty
high level of awareness. Sometimes a little bit of
fear will help facilitate that awareness, and is thus
not such a horrible thing. Especially for beginners.

Robert

gds wrote:
peter wrote:
gds wrote:
[SMS wrote:
It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
gave it up when the MHL was enacted.]

See the discusion seveal years ago at:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.b...ab92bc8b9fb83a

As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
examples, even if not very good ones.

Yes, typical meandering USENET thread. But are there actually any
examples in there that back up Steven's claim? I.e. someone posting
who says that they personally gave up cycling after 20 or more years
because of a MHL?

His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

I merely pointed to the thread as a discussion of the point in
question. Does anyone see a claim by me of anything else?

Yes, you stated that there were "some examples" in the thread you
cited. My cursory glance at the thread didn't find any so I was
wondering if there really were some.

BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding or
not after a MHL is enacted. Never claimed to have any.

Nor has anyone stated that you did.

gds wrote:

BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding
or not after a MHL is enacted.

Or on anything else AFAICS, just complaints about the data of others.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven wrote:
gds wrote:

BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding
or not after a MHL is enacted.

Or on anything else AFAICS, just complaints about the data of others.


But it is a lot less delusional a state than thinking you have data
which proves something when you don't.

I have good data on lots of things. I don't think anyone has good data
on helmet efficacy.