|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
"AMuzi" wrote in message ... Lou Holtman wrote: Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example, pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle instead of drive. Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths due to air pollution, for example. The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with bike trips. A brief radio interview discussing this is at http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they discourage riding. This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus gets almost no use.) The paper's free to download at http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio? It's a Bhutan thing. I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me. The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen to themselves think these days. -- Jay Beattie. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/5/2011 10:42 PM, Dan wrote:
Frank writes: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher... snip Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it? Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother trying to make it safer. That's really the issue. It's not whether, as you say, cycling is safe enough to do -- we apparently all agree that it is -- but could it (easily) be made safer -- and I'd add -- more convenient and more pleasant. On our local expressways we have "HOV" (high occupancy vehicle) dedicated lanes. I'd like the same in the city. I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing vehicles jammed curb to curb. 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 11:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Dan wrote: Frank writes: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher... snip Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? Safe enough for what? Safe enough to do? Don't we all do it? No, not for some definitions of "we." Or, by "stop worrying", do you mean safe enough to not bother trying to make it safer. Safe enough to dispense with the cries that "We need bike tracks and bike boxes and bike lanes and bike paths because ordinary roads are so dangerous." If people, currently cycling or not, want to ride with some separation from vehicular traffic, why stand in their way? To each their own. You can't control the world, you should stop trying. Safe enough to dispense with campaigns saying "Riding a bike without a helmet can kill you." Cyclists seem astonishingly willing to accept anti-bike propaganda, and to claim they would have died if not for their special hat, or special paint on the road. Why do you care what some people think? I don't. I'm ambivalent about helmets but utterly opposed to MHL's. What's so hard? Live and let live. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 1:36 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 6-8-2011 17:45, Frank Krygowski schreef: 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. Hmm, not very usefull those figures. I had a day off yesterday and did a ride during a weekday in working hours. It was a nice day and there were hordes of retired people on the road on their bikes. I didn't count them exactly but hell more than 50% were on E bikes. It's become a 'plague' here in the Neteherlands and boy they do dumb things on their bikes. They still think traffic is in the sixties. It was reported that accidents with older people are rapidly increasing the last 2 years. Go figure what only E bikes can do... Andre are you paying attention? Lou, has to watch cars and bloody E bikes these days. My father is 92. I wish to hell he was only driving an E-bike. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 1:45 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
wrote in message ... Lou Holtman wrote: Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example, pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle instead of drive. Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths due to air pollution, for example. The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with bike trips. A brief radio interview discussing this is at http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they discourage riding. This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus gets almost no use.) The paper's free to download at http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio? It's a Bhutan thing. I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me. The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen to themselves think these days. -- Jay Beattie. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- How is riding a bike while talking on a phone worse than driving while doing the same? I don't get that. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Jay Beattie wrote:
"AMuzi" wrote in message ... Lou Holtman wrote: Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example, pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle instead of drive. Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths due to air pollution, for example. The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with bike trips. A brief radio interview discussing this is at http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they discourage riding. This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus gets almost no use.) The paper's free to download at http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio? It's a Bhutan thing. I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me. The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen to themselves think these days. One can only imagine what they find so addictively compelling. When I thump on the door panel, they startle like deer in headlights, as if I woke them from a dream. Dream in your own damned lane, pal. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
Op 6-8-2011 20:08, Peter Cole schreef:
On 8/6/2011 1:45 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: wrote in message ... Lou Holtman wrote: Op 6-8-2011 0:02, Frank Krygowski schreef: Many years ago, the eminent British researcher Mayer Hillman pegged the benefit-to-risk ratio for cycling at 20:1 in favor of cycling. His estimate was based on calculations of years of life gained vs. years of life lost for society as a whole. That included, for example, pedestrians not killed by a car because the driver chose to cycle instead of drive. Last year de Hartog et.al. pegged the ratio at 9:1 in favor of cycling in the Netherlands, and 7:1 in Britain, this time for just the cyclists themselves. This did not account for things like fewer bystander deaths due to air pollution, for example. The latest paper gives even more optimistic estimates. A study of the urban cyclist use of Barcelona's bike sharing system pegged that ratio at 77 to 1 in favor of bicycling, for those replacing car trips with bike trips. A brief radio interview discussing this is at http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/au...-too-dangerous Warning: There is some slight mention of helmets - specifically, the statement that none of the people in the study wore them; and that they discourage riding. This is consistent with data from London's and Dublin's and Paris's bike share plans, with millions of users but no (or almost no) serious injuries. (And OTOH there's Melbourne's, which requires helmets and thus gets almost no use.) The paper's free to download at http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5293.full.pdf Really, how safe does cycling have to be, and by how much do its benefits have to exceed the tiny risk, before we say "Stop worrying. It's safe enough"? What does 7:1 etc mean? What is benefit to risk ratio? It's a Bhutan thing. I'm 7x more satisfied than the texting putz trying to run over me. The laws appear to be totally meaningless -- I see as many or more people on phones these days than I did before the law. What amazes me is the number of people walking and talking, texting, apping, etc., etc. It seems like everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they talking/texting to? What is so important? I see asswipes on bikes talking on the phone. I read some guy the riot act the other day who was riding like a fool while talking on a cellphone. Incessant yakking has become the new opiate of the masses. People are utterly afraid to shut up and listen to themselves think these days. -- Jay Beattie. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- How is riding a bike while talking on a phone worse than driving while doing the same? I don't get that. It isn't. Every other cyclist here younger than 20 is ****ing with their smartphone. I could hardly pass a cyclist this afternoon who was doing whatever on his phone. He took another route and I had to pass him again a couple of km further. He was still 'playing' with is Iphone not paying attention. Bloody idiot. There comes a day that I stop and take his/her phone away and throw it in a cornfield..... Lou, not really.. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
On 8/6/2011 10:45 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
It seems like everyone on the sidewalks downtown is on the phone. Who are they talking/texting to? It's just too hard to talk on the phone while bicycling because you have no hand left to steer with when one hand is holding your coffee. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |