Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

wrote:
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.

I don't doubt that it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a
bike messenger. I doubt it's incredibly difficult or impossible for a
professional working in an appropriate field. I note that such
estimates have been published for cycling by professional researchers
in many different countries, so those professionals seem to think
they're pulling it off.

I'm not sure they'd be impressed by a bike messenger telling them
they're mistaken!

Which means
it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to compare
cycling to other activities based on these rates.

I'll also note that professional researchers have ways to estimate the
number of hours spent playing basketball, riding horses, swimming, etc.
Again, what you claim is impossible is actually routine for certain
people, even if not easy.

(Hence my analogy to the trackstand.)



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?

Of course. One of the problems with this sort of work is defining
various types and levels of injury. (Recall that Thompson and Rivara
called a cut hear a "head injury" to pump up fear.)

.01% is 100-per-million population, or what
about 40,000 every year in the US.

Remember, that figure was for San Diego county. The proportion for all
America is likely to be signficantly less. Not much cycling in Fargo
during the winter.

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?

Not quite that restrictive. For example, transfer from an acute
treatment center (satellite facility) to a main ER counted, IIRC, as
did a few other possibilities. I don't have the paper here at the
moment.

It is also obvious that most of [bike messenger
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?'

Here's how, Robert. You've claimed over and over that nobody can
estimate how many miles people ride, and that any estimates are
worthless unless their detailed methodology is included.

Yet you've just turned around and given a straight-faced estimate for
how far your bike messenger friends ride. And, of course, you've done
it with no description of your methodology.

You really don't see the discrepancy?

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.

Oh jeez, indeed! I gave that as one example! Check Nashbar for the
price of a Gore-tex jacket.
http://tinyurl.com/avj6h
If a person falls and rips his jacket but suffers no injury, that's a
"serious accident" by Moritz's standard. If a person tries to ride
through a narrow space between buildings and hooks and rips a pannier,
that's a "serious accident." If a person slips and trashes his right
STI lever, that too is "serious", even if the person isn't hurt at all.

The threshold Moritz used was simply wrong. It was too low. And yet,
even with that, his paper shows cycling to be acceptably safe.

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.

And your justification for that is...?

YOU are the one focusing on minor injuries, not me.

Bull. I am very clearly saying they are not worth worrying about.

I
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.

Robert, to say this as politely as possible, if you're not lying or
experiencing severe memory problems, then I've misunderstood your
points for a long time. I was sure that when you harped on cyclists
getting injured so frequently per mile, you were talking mostly about
minor injuries.

If all that time, you were talking about _serious_ injuries per mile,
then I suppose you are not lying in your paragraph just above. But,
OTOH, you are absolutely mad!


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.'

So is road rash a serious injury? It certainly takes at least a few
days to heal. It creates problems. It hurts like hell (well, almost;
I suspect hell hurts a bit worse).

If your chainring slices your calf, is that a serious injury? Cleaning
out the chain grime might even require local anaesthetic, & there's a
slight chance of stitches afterwards.

How about a broken finger? X-rays, a splint, writing with your
opposite hand, etc.

ISTM those might be in the responses for "real injury." Yet these, and
similar injuries, happen to kids on playgrounds every day. They are
"serious" only if you live in a bubble.

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.

Oh, I know! Falling off a motorcycle at 90 mph while riding naked
would certainly do that! But don't pretendt that _most_ road rash
"requires" a trip to the ER. While lots of people may make that trip,
they certainly would not if they didn't have medical coverage that
would pay for it.

Tell us: Does your typical bike messenger head for the ER for his
typical case of road rash?


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.

Wrong. To hear of a survey is one thing. To hear of a survey and
decide to take part is another. Those who decided to take part were a
small percentage of the "hits" on his website, IIRC. It's very likely
that those who had never had a memorable bike crash simply didn't click
the link.

Really, Robert, that should be obvious.

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.

Awareness is good. I've never said otherwise. But fear is not needed.

I understand your motives are good - that you think scaring people
about cycling will make them better riders.

But I disagree that such a thing is necessary or justifiable. I'll
note that the people most respected in cycling education also disagree
with you.

And I think your habit of scaring people is just one more thing
contributing to the marginalization of cycling in the US.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
wrote:
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.

I don't doubt that it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a
bike messenger. I doubt it's incredibly difficult or impossible for a
professional working in an appropriate field. I note that such
estimates have been published for cycling by professional researchers
in many different countries, so those professionals seem to think
they're pulling it off.

I'm not sure they'd be impressed by a bike messenger telling them
they're mistaken!

Which means
it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to compare
cycling to other activities based on these rates.

I'll also note that professional researchers have ways to estimate the
number of hours spent playing basketball, riding horses, swimming, etc.
Again, what you claim is impossible is actually routine for certain
people, even if not easy.

(Hence my analogy to the trackstand.)



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?

Of course. One of the problems with this sort of work is defining
various types and levels of injury. (Recall that Thompson and Rivara
called a cut hear a "head injury" to pump up fear.)

.01% is 100-per-million population, or what
about 40,000 every year in the US.

Remember, that figure was for San Diego county. The proportion for all
America is likely to be signficantly less. Not much cycling in Fargo
during the winter.

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?

Not quite that restrictive. For example, transfer from an acute
treatment center (satellite facility) to a main ER counted, IIRC, as
did a few other possibilities. I don't have the paper here at the
moment.

It is also obvious that most of [bike messenger
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?'

Here's how, Robert. You've claimed over and over that nobody can
estimate how many miles people ride, and that any estimates are
worthless unless their detailed methodology is included.

Yet you've just turned around and given a straight-faced estimate for
how far your bike messenger friends ride. And, of course, you've done
it with no description of your methodology.

You really don't see the discrepancy?

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.

Oh jeez, indeed! I gave that as one example! Check Nashbar for the
price of a Gore-tex jacket.
http://tinyurl.com/avj6h
If a person falls and rips his jacket but suffers no injury, that's a
"serious accident" by Moritz's standard. If a person tries to ride
through a narrow space between buildings and hooks and rips a pannier,
that's a "serious accident." If a person slips and trashes his right
STI lever, that too is "serious", even if the person isn't hurt at all.

The threshold Moritz used was simply wrong. It was too low. And yet,
even with that, his paper shows cycling to be acceptably safe.

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.

And your justification for that is...?

YOU are the one focusing on minor injuries, not me.

Bull. I am very clearly saying they are not worth worrying about.

I
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.

Robert, to say this as politely as possible, if you're not lying or
experiencing severe memory problems, then I've misunderstood your
points for a long time. I was sure that when you harped on cyclists
getting injured so frequently per mile, you were talking mostly about
minor injuries.

If all that time, you were talking about _serious_ injuries per mile,
then I suppose you are not lying in your paragraph just above. But,
OTOH, you are absolutely mad!


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.'

So is road rash a serious injury? It certainly takes at least a few
days to heal. It creates problems. It hurts like hell (well, almost;
I suspect hell hurts a bit worse).

If your chainring slices your calf, is that a serious injury? Cleaning
out the chain grime might even require local anaesthetic, & there's a
slight chance of stitches afterwards.

How about a broken finger? X-rays, a splint, writing with your
opposite hand, etc.

ISTM those might be in the responses for "real injury." Yet these, and
similar injuries, happen to kids on playgrounds every day. They are
"serious" only if you live in a bubble.

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.

Oh, I know! Falling off a motorcycle at 90 mph while riding naked
would certainly do that! But don't pretendt that _most_ road rash
"requires" a trip to the ER. While lots of people may make that trip,
they certainly would not if they didn't have medical coverage that
would pay for it.

Tell us: Does your typical bike messenger head for the ER for his
typical case of road rash?


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.

Wrong. To hear of a survey is one thing. To hear of a survey and
decide to take part is another. Those who decided to take part were a
small percentage of the "hits" on his website, IIRC. It's very likely
that those who had never had a memorable bike crash simply didn't click
the link.

Really, Robert, that should be obvious.

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.

Awareness is good. I've never said otherwise. But fear is not needed.

I understand your motives are good - that you think scaring people
about cycling will make them better riders.

But I disagree that such a thing is necessary or justifiable. I'll
note that the people most respected in cycling education also disagree
with you.

And I think your habit of scaring people is just one more thing
contributing to the marginalization of cycling in the US.

- Frank Krygowski

My take is that there is little convincing going on, those who believe
that research shows helmets are great, those that believe that helmets
are not so great, and those who believe that the data is compromised
and they just don't know all appear to hold their positions -certainly
within the time frame of this forum

So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

That said I wear a helmet all the time. However, I do not do a great
variety of riding types. I ride high mileage (5,000+ miles /year) all
on the road. I ride solo and in groups but purely for recreation and
enjoy speed and (while I am terrible at it) long climbs. I ride only on
a racing style road bike.

For the first 30 years of my riding I never wore a helmet. When the
early Bell helmets came out I was a slow adopter, I bought one but
found it so heavy and uncomfotable that I seldom used it. My transfer
to helmet use came with the introduction of the early soft shell
helmets. They were light enough to be pretty comfortable, they were
pretty inexpensive and I saw no downside. With the introduction of the
light weight hard shells I switched over as I found them to be lighter,
more comfortable and cooler.

While not convinced that helmets provide a statistically high degree of
added safety my logic is that they are now very inexpensive (on a per
year or per mile basis) very comfortable- I really don't find them
annoying at all, and given my agnostic view of their efficacy I simply
figure--"Why not?!?!" For me I see no downside.

gds wrote:

My take is that there is little convincing going on, those who believe
that research shows helmets are great, those that believe that helmets
are not so great, and those who believe that the data is compromised
and they just don't know all appear to hold their positions -certainly
within the time frame of this forum

If you were to review these discussion for the past ten years, you'd
find a significant amount of convincing going on. In that time period,
I'm only one of many who changed from being quite pro-helmet to being a
helmet skeptic. That change occurred because of the data.

And BTW, since you appended this to a discussion between Robert and me,
I don't think he's much of a helmet promoter either. Our disagreement
is largely over whether to label cycling as "dangerous."


So, l'd like to understand a bit more how holding one position or
another actually effects helmet use and under what circumstances.

I'll start. I'm pretty well convinced that the myriad studies show
differing results. So, my current position is that I just don't know.

OK, we disagree there. Yes, there are studies with opposite
conclusions. But critical analysis of the studies convinced me which
studies were more correct. I found the differences to be very
significant.

While not convinced that helmets provide a statistically high degree of
added safety my logic is that they are now very inexpensive (on a per
year or per mile basis) very comfortable- I really don't find them
annoying at all, and given my agnostic view of their efficacy I simply
figure--"Why not?!?!" For me I see no downside.

My view is: That's fine. Like almost all the people who are helmet
skeptics, I don't have a particular problem with you (or anyone)
wearing a helmet.

I don't think helmets have zero value, just very limited value. For
certain riders, they may have a high enough probability of a crash, and
of a crash within the limited protection level of a helmet, that even I
would recommend one.

Let's see: someone playing ice hockey on their bicycle? ;-) But
seriously, tricky mountain biking; crit racing; or someone who is
uncoordinated enough that ordinary riding causes lots of falls - and
I've known such people!

My problem is with the current pervasive message that says "Helmets
prevent up to 88% of injuries, or fatalities, or whatever; and everyone
should wear a helmet every time they ride; and it's stupid to ever ride
without a helmet; and you shouldn't be allowed on an organized ride
without a helmet; and parents that let their kids ride without helmets
are child abusers; and it should be illegal to ride anywhere without a
helmet." ALL of those have been seriously stated!

That line of "thinking" overstates the benefit of these low-protection
hats, and greatly overstates the very low danger in cycling. I think
it's demonstrably bad for cycling and for cyclists.

- Frank Krygowski

OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

gds wrote:
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.

It's clear that if you don't have accurate data that proves something,
then you simply must accept the bad data. "So you don't like the haircut
I gave you, I suppose you could do better?"

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

Not at the population level, that's for sure.

wrote:

I don't doubt that it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a
bike messenger. I doubt it's incredibly difficult or impossible for a
professional working in an appropriate field.

snobbish personal attack noted

Personally I am amused that a bike messenger would
always be the one to remind an 'engineer' about
the minimum standards of the scientific method.
But this is just basic stuff I learned when I was in
grade school; it's not like you have to be a
professional researcher to understand the basic
standards for what can be called data.

I note that such
estimates have been published for cycling by professional researchers
in many different countries, so those professionals seem to think
they're pulling it off.

I doubt they think any such thing. Otherwise, those
who use these estimates for their own ends, like yourself,
would actually include some sort of methodology for
them. It's not the professionals who think they're
'pulling it off,' it's the psuedo professionals like yourself
who abuse their results. The real professionals know
what these estimates are worth and don't pretend
anything different. You don't come off as a
professional, but as a politician or a salesman.

I'm not sure they'd be impressed by a bike messenger telling them
they're mistaken!

I'm not telling them, I'm telling you. For all we
know, those estimates could be spot on. Or,
they could be off by orders of magnitude. Maybe
you could explain, in detail, why you think the
numbers given are correct. Is it simply because
you believe anything told to you by a 'professional?'


Which means
it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to compare
cycling to other activities based on these rates.

I'll also note that professional researchers have ways to estimate the
number of hours spent playing basketball, riding horses, swimming, etc.
Again, what you claim is impossible is actually routine for certain
people, even if not easy.

(Hence my analogy to the trackstand.)

Let's cut the bull****. These ESTIMATES (thank you
for starting to use the correct term, where you had
previously used the word 'data') are based on (at best)
surveys of a certain small section of the population.
The 'professionals' then take that number and extrapolate
it to the whole population. Unfortunately, it's not
nearly that simple, hence the term 'estimate.' When
the surveys themselves are not published and no
methodology is provided then the estimates must be
filed under interesting but not one bit truly useful.

In any case, the estimates show that cycling is
not very deadly, but relatively likely to cause injury.
That's injury, as in both serious and minor.

I guess it depends on how you define 'serious injury,'
doesn't it?

Of course. One of the problems with this sort of work is defining
various types and levels of injury. (Recall that Thompson and Rivara
called a cut hear a "head injury" to pump up fear.)

The medical terminology also classifies many
injuries which laypeople do not typically think
of as head injuries as head injuries.

.01% is 100-per-million population, or what
about 40,000 every year in the US.

Remember, that figure was for San Diego county. The proportion for all
America is likely to be signficantly less. Not much cycling in Fargo
during the winter.

Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of riders
on the road in San Diego, so (by your own
assertion) the rate of accident there is going
to be lower than other places. Which means
other places are likely to have more bike injuries
per unit of population than we might guess
from the number of cyclists who live there.

You see how you open a can of worms when
you try to extrapolate across the whole population
based on a survey of one small sector of it.


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?'

Here's how, Robert. You've claimed over and over that nobody can
estimate how many miles people ride,

Anybody can give estimates! What are you talking
about? I myself have offered some.

and that any estimates are
worthless unless their detailed methodology is included.

Estimates are just that: estimates. Whether
methodology is included or not. If no methodology
is included, then the estimates are useless for
any serious discussion. Like those that you have
offered.

Yet you've just turned around and given a straight-faced estimate for
how far your bike messenger friends ride. And, of course, you've done
it with no description of your methodology.

You really don't see the discrepancy?

You completely miss the point, or pretend to.

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.

Oh jeez, indeed! I gave that as one example! Check Nashbar for the
price of a Gore-tex jacket.
http://tinyurl.com/avj6h
If a person falls and rips his jacket but suffers no injury, that's a
"serious accident" by Moritz's standard. If a person tries to ride
through a narrow space between buildings and hooks and rips a pannier,
that's a "serious accident." If a person slips and trashes his right
STI lever, that too is "serious", even if the person isn't hurt at all.

And if a person goes to the hospital and incurs $250,000 worth
of medical expenses, that doesn't count at all! Because it's
an 'outlier.' Great stuff.

The threshold Moritz used was simply wrong. It was too low. And yet,
even with that, his paper shows cycling to be acceptably safe.

One of the most serious injuries I have ever suffered
caused absolutely no damage to the bike, and I never
went to the doctor because I had no insurance at the
time. Thus this rather debilitating injury cost exactly
$0 on the Moritz scale. I'm sure there is a lot of
that, but you only see the other side of it, the
minor injuries that make it into the 'real' column.

I see you using the term 'acceptably safe' now.
Is it no longer 'relatively safe?'

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.

And your justification for that is...?

I apologize, I misread your statement. I agree that
such types of inconsequential accidents would be
included in that category.


YOU are the one focusing on minor injuries, not me.

Bull. I am very clearly saying they are not worth worrying about.

I
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.

Robert, to say this as politely as possible, if you're not lying or
experiencing severe memory problems, then I've misunderstood your
points for a long time. I was sure that when you harped on cyclists
getting injured so frequently per mile, you were talking mostly about
minor injuries.

No, Frank. It is you who continually insist that I
am referring to minor injuries. I am concerned
with 'real injuries.' Not skinned knees, as you
continually insist.

If all that time, you were talking about _serious_ injuries per mile,
then I suppose you are not lying in your paragraph just above. But,
OTOH, you are absolutely mad!

Absolutely mad, huh? Okay. Takes one to know one I guess.
Kifer and Moritz both reported roughly 10% of their very
experienced respondents suffered a 'real' or a 'serious'
injury in the past year. They give an average rate of
'real' or 'serious' injury of once per 23,000 miles to about
30,000 miles, respectively. According to these estimated
injury rates, I should already have suffered 8-10 of these
'real' or 'serious' injuries (and about 100 insignificant crashes).
For me that's about one 'real/serious' every 2-3 years.
Over a lifetime of cycling, that translates into what I
would describe as a ****load of 'real' or 'serious' injuries.
(Note: not 'minor' but 'real' or 'serious.')

That is your cue to repeat your unsubstantiated claim
that the 'real' and 'serious' crashes reported in these
surveys are actually 'minor' injuries. And to thus insist
that I am referring to 'minor' injuries.



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.'

So is road rash a serious injury? It certainly takes at least a few
days to heal. It creates problems. It hurts like hell (well, almost;
I suspect hell hurts a bit worse).

Sometimes road rash and contusion are
serious enough to require an ER or outpatient
visit.

If your chainring slices your calf, is that a serious injury? Cleaning
out the chain grime might even require local anaesthetic, & there's a
slight chance of stitches afterwards.

Sometimes a laceration can be quite serious,
requiring not just dozens of stitches but multiple
layers of stitches.

How about a broken finger? X-rays, a splint, writing with your
opposite hand, etc.

ISTM those might be in the responses for "real injury." Yet these, and
similar injuries, happen to kids on playgrounds every day. They are
"serious" only if you live in a bubble.

There you go again. Insisting that the 'real' and
'serious' injuries reported by cyclists are actually
all minor and consequential, so why worry about
them? But the injuries you name are all on the
low end of the spectrum to be called 'real' or
'serious.' There is another end of the spectrum which
you seem unable to acknowledge.

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.

Oh, I know! Falling off a motorcycle at 90 mph while riding naked
would certainly do that! But don't pretendt that _most_ road rash
"requires" a trip to the ER.

What the hell are you talking about? I have
never written any such thing. There are literally
millions of cases of road rash every year that never
see a doctor and are not reported in any way.

While lots of people may make that trip,
they certainly would not if they didn't have medical coverage that
would pay for it.

Tell us: Does your typical bike messenger head for the ER for his
typical case of road rash?

The typical bike messenger does not
go to the ER unless a bone is sticking out. How
do you think this affects the accident stats in a
place like NYC, where the relatively small number
of messengers produces a substantial portion of
the total daily cycling miles?


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.

Wrong. To hear of a survey is one thing. To hear of a survey and
decide to take part is another. Those who decided to take part were a
small percentage of the "hits" on his website, IIRC. It's very likely
that those who had never had a memorable bike crash simply didn't click
the link.

Really, Robert, that should be obvious.

Really, Frank, nothing that you insist is obvious
is actually that obvious.

If those responding to that
survey are anything like the cross-section of population
we get here on wreck.bikes, and I suspect that they are,
a rather large portion of them clicked the link because
they were so eager to trumpet their multiple decades
of completely safe and flawless cycling without any
sort of mishap whatsoever, and to attack vigorously
any suggestion that cycling could be considered anythin
other than completely safe. I do believe that is why
Kifer, for one, offered the survey in the first place--to
show cycling to be safe. He was unpleasantly
surprised by the results, according to his own
comments.

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.

Awareness is good. I've never said otherwise. But fear is not needed.

I understand your motives are good - that you think scaring people
about cycling will make them better riders.

What I have done is show people that it is up
to them--it is primarily within their own power-- to ride
safely in traffic. That is the number one thing they
need to know. This must be a happy thought to any
beginners who feel they are at the mercy of
random chance.

But I disagree that such a thing is necessary or justifiable. I'll
note that the people most respected in cycling education also disagree
with you.

Really? This is interesting. Who are these 'people most
respected in cycling education,' and what do they
say?

Robert

I find the various "appeals to authority" interesting. As well as the
oposite.

Frank, saying we should apply a deep discount to Robert's point because
he is "just" a bike messenger lacks any measure of intellectual
honesty. His arguments are good or bad irrespective of how he makes a
living.

And the opposite is true. Just because one has "prfessional standing"
does not make their argument right or wrong- the arguemnt is
independent of the presentor.

The recent news story about faked cloning in South Korea is a good
lesson. Remember, that a nanosecond before the story broke the
researcher in question was considered a luminary in the field.
Scientists applauded his break throughs, he was published in some of
the highest ranked academic journals, and his government was hailing
him as their hero.

Of course, the data was all fake and all he did was prove that
eventually the peer review process works. That process is founded on
the principle that a scientists work must be reproducible by others.
That is where that fraud came uncovered.

But up until that point that fraud was considered to be valid,
pioneering science.

I am not suggesting any fraud in any of the studies quoted. But I am
pointing out that degrees and job titles - or their absence- is not
what makes findings valid.

Another example. I had a friend (now deceased) who was a psychiatrist,
trained in Vienna. Escaping the Nazi's he fled to the U.S. During the
several years it took to get his medical license here he worked as a
butler and his wife as a housekeeper. Not high status jobs but I'm sure
you understand what a mistake it would be to apply a deep discount to
his views on pschoanalysis.

Attack the argument not the person.

gds wrote:
OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
literally never come close to needing it.

I will wear one on our club rides, because I don't want our rides to be
endless helmet debates. But most of my riding is not on club rides.

When I do "tricky" mountain biking (that is, where a fall is a
reasonable possibility, not just flat terrain cruises) I sometimes wear
one. But I do very little of that these days.

I actually started wearing one at my wife's request, when we moved to a
bigger city and my commute was longer with more traffic. But I no
longer wear one for commuting.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
gds wrote:
OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
literally never come close to needing it.

Only takes once. (Same goes for seat belts, catastrophic health insurance,
birth control, fire insurance, etc etc etc etc...)

Bill "whatever" S.

Sorni wrote:
wrote:
gds wrote:
OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
literally never come close to needing it.

Only takes once.

Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
too.

But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?

- Frank Krygowski