Regional and School Buses!

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote

My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist.

So based on this do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?

Jon



Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.
If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
middle ground for other outcomes.

You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

Wilson wrote:

Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly
dangerous. If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous.
There's little middle ground for other outcomes.

You can say the same about transatlantic air travel: if the airliner
crashes into the sea then your chances are not good (!), but that's not
enough reason to state that transatlantic air travel is dangerous.

You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

And whether to take the chances is based on the overall odds, not the
worst case outcome.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Wilson wrote:

Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly
dangerous. If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous.
There's little middle ground for other outcomes.

You can say the same about transatlantic air travel: if the airliner
crashes into the sea then your chances are not good (!), but that's not
enough reason to state that transatlantic air travel is dangerous.

You consider the the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

And whether to take the chances is based on the overall odds, not the
worst case outcome.


I think you've got it Pete. Any outcome other than a safe landing is a
worst case outcome. There's no room for alternate outcomes. If airplanes
always landed safely you could say flying was essentially a perfectly safe
activity. But they don't. You might feel safe in a commercial airliner,
but decline to fly with an Alaska bush pilot who flies into wilderness areas
where there are no airports. You consider the safety ramifications and you
take your chances.

I'm not telling you not to cycle on the road, I'm only suggesting if you do
and you get run over by a bus there's every likelihood it will be your last
ride. So do whatever you can to avoid that eventuality. To me this is
common sense stuff. You know like maybe not wearing a helmet when you
ride - you consider the safety ramifications and you take your chances.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:41:36 -0500, in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
"Wilson" wrote:

Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.
If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
middle ground for other outcomes.

I once saw a poster that said "You can't get AIDS in public toilets."
I always wanted to append that it mattered what one *did* in the
public toilet! That wasn't what they meant, of course.

I saw a news article about skydiving this weekend; I think he didn't
have a parachute, as I recall. Proper equipment is an absolute
*must*!!!

Jones

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote

[...] do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?


Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.

So in your view danger is based not on the likelihood of bad
outcome, but rather the occurrence of bad outcome. Thus, if
I go sky diving and land safely, then that particular event wasn't
"particularly dangerous".

If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
middle ground for other outcomes.

You consider the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

So based on this, do you consider cycling as more dangerous, less
dangerous, or equally as dangerous as sky diving?

Jon

"Jon" wrote in message
...
"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote

[...] do you believe cycling is "particularly dangerous"?


Consider sky diving. If you land safely it isn't particularly dangerous.

So in your view danger is based not on the likelihood of bad
outcome, but rather the occurrence of bad outcome. Thus, if
I go sky diving and land safely, then that particular event wasn't
"particularly dangerous".

If you don't land safely it can be extremely dangerous. There's little
middle ground for other outcomes.

You consider the safety ramifications and then you take your chances.

So based on this, do you consider cycling as more dangerous, less
dangerous, or equally as dangerous as sky diving?

Jon



What I know for sure is if a bus runs over you while cycling or if your
parachute doesn't open
while sky diving the two activities would be equally dangerous to my way of
thinking. I feel
you must be itching to get to address the relative odds of those two
outcomes happening.
Surely you've done a statistical risk analysis of the fatalities per hour of
the two activities and
the answer is on the tips of your fingers.

I'm guessing sky diving would have greater fatalities per hour due to its
much
greater speed providing more exposure per hour as well as the greater
certainly of fatality.
Cycling in heavy traffic gives you fair amount of exposure too, but perhaps
less certainty
of fatality.

You realize your answer could cause me to give up cycling for sky diving if
your analysis
shows it to be less dangerous per hour of exposure. Not.

Wilson wrote:

I think you've got it Pete. Any outcome other than a safe landing is a
worst case outcome. There's no room for alternate outcomes. If
airplanes always landed safely you could say flying was essentially a
perfectly safe activity. But they don't.

But they do say it's a reasonably safe activity, and that's proven by
lots of people surviving their flights.

I'm not telling you not to cycle on the road, I'm only suggesting if you
do and you get run over by a bus there's every likelihood it will be
your last ride. So do whatever you can to avoid that eventuality.

No. If you do everything you can to avoid accidents that may have fatal
outcomes then you won't get up to much. No shortage of people are
killed falling down stairs, so do I choose to live in a bungalow? No.
Do I always take an elevator when one is available? No, I prefer to
exercise and use the stairs. How about you? Do you always avoid going
down stairs, or make a special point of sitting down and moving down a
step at a time to avoid the possibility of a fatal fall? I very much
doubt it!
If you don't take the probability of the accident into account then
you're doomed to never doing anything or living with innumerable cases
of double standards in your approach to risk taking.

me this is common sense stuff. You know like maybe not wearing a helmet
when you ride - you consider the safety ramifications and you take your
chances.

Which just goes to show there's more to it than "common sense", which is
often not common and sometimes not too sensible. I gave up wearing the
helmet I used to use for "common sense" reasons every time I rode (at
least for transportational cycling) because having read lots of
literature on the subject I now know there's no real effect on serious
head injuries in populations that take them up. That might not be
"common sense", but it's true. I can think up scenarios where they'll
help, but I can also think up scenarious where they hinder. The simple
fact of the matter is that playing the odds for survival they make no
appreciable difference.

And it remains the case that cycling just isn't that dangerous. My
chances of a serious head injury cycling are a little less per unit
distance travelled on a bike in the UK compared to being a pedestrian,
and that's with the benefit of my special segregated sidewalk when I'm
on foot.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Wilson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jon" wrote in message

So based on this, do you consider cycling as more dangerous, less
dangerous, or equally as dangerous as sky diving?

What I know for sure is if a bus runs over you while cycling
or if your parachute doesn't open while sky diving the two
activities would be equally dangerous to my way of thinking.

So, it sounds like for you that the worst case potential
bad outcome is the key measure of risk.

I feel you must be itching to get to address the relative odds of
those two outcomes happening.

I'm simply trying to have a reasonable conversation about
comparitive risks and how peoples' common sense assessment
of risk often differs from actual observed risk.

Surely you've done a statistical risk analysis of the fatalities per hour
of the two activities and the answer is on the tips of your fingers.

I have previously posted summary and links to studies of
comparative risks for activities.

I'm guessing sky diving would have greater fatalities per
hour due to its much greater speed providing more exposure
per hour as well as the greater certainly of fatality. Cycling
in heavy traffic gives you fair amount of exposure too, but perhaps less
certainty of fatality.

Yes, though "certainty of fatality" is perhaps better phrased
as "risk of fatality."

It seems common sense to many people that sky diving is
much more risky than cycling. Turns out that the observed
record bears that out.

It seems common sense to many people that cycling is
much more risky than driving. Turns out that the observed
record does not bear that out.

You realize your answer could cause me to give up cycling
for sky diving if your analysis shows it to be less dangerous
per hour of exposure. Not.

I assume you will continue to do what seems best for you.

I don't expect people in general to change common sense
based on statistical studies. I don't expect very many
people to change common sense based on analysis
of any sort.

Seems to me, we are sensing creatures who think,
not thinking creatures who sense. We are continually
mapping reality, some say creating it, is various ways
often most constrained by our projections. Questioning
preconceptions, looking at things from a different
perspective can be enlightening. Like riding a
recumbent. %^)

A woman down the street works at a university about
three miles away. Due to rising fuel prices and an
increase in parking fees, she's talking about commuting
to work by bicycle, but concerned about safety.
I suggested a couple of routes that are lightly traveled.
My expectation is that if she rides these routes two
or three times a week for a month, she will become
comfortable with them and not see cycling there as
particularly dangerous.

That's a perception that I suggest is worthwhile to
encourage more people to develop.

Jon

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Wilson wrote:

I think you've got it Pete. Any outcome other than a safe landing is a
worst case outcome. There's no room for alternate outcomes. If
airplanes always landed safely you could say flying was essentially a
perfectly safe activity. But they don't.

But they do say it's a reasonably safe activity, and that's proven by
lots of people surviving their flights.



Yes those reasonably safe flights are truly wonderful. It's the crashes I
don't like. Everyone usually dies.




I'm not telling you not to cycle on the road, I'm only suggesting if you
do and you get run over by a bus there's every likelihood it will be
your last ride. So do whatever you can to avoid that eventuality.

No. If you do everything you can to avoid accidents that may have fatal
outcomes then you won't get up to much. No shortage of people are
killed falling down stairs, so do I choose to live in a bungalow? No.
Do I always take an elevator when one is available? No, I prefer to
exercise and use the stairs. How about you?



Yes, I take the stairs too. If one of those elevators "lets go" the landing
could be rough.



Do you always avoid going
down stairs, or make a special point of sitting down and moving down a
step at a time to avoid the possibility of a fatal fall? I very much
doubt it!



You are correct, sir! I don't have all day. But I do put my helmet on
before doing the stairs.

In fact, it may have been Jon who suggested there was statistical proof of
more fatalities per hour of exposure just being at home than when cycling.
So I'm now considering wearing my helmet whenever I'm at home and not just
when I'm doing the stairs or off cycling. And when I take my bike someplace
by auto I now wear my cycling helmet in the car. Knowing now that auto bike
transport is more dangerous than the cycling, it only stands to reason there
would be a greater need to wear a helmet transporting the bike than when
riding the bike. I thank Jon for making this clear to me.


If you don't take the probability of the accident into account then
you're doomed to never doing anything or living with innumerable cases
of double standards in your approach to risk taking.



Not taking in to account the probability of accidents and being doomed to a
life of innumerable cases of double standards in my approach to risk taking
is a troubling thought. Hopefully there will be book of probabilites
available somewhere to assist me in avoiding that kind of life. I'm sure
Jon will know where I can locate a resource such as this.



me this is common sense stuff. You know like maybe not wearing a helmet
when you ride - you consider the safety ramifications and you take your
chances.

Which just goes to show there's more to it than "common sense", which is
often not common and sometimes not too sensible. I gave up wearing the
helmet I used to use for "common sense" reasons every time I rode (at
least for transportational cycling) because having read lots of
literature on the subject I now know there's no real effect on serious
head injuries in populations that take them up. That might not be
"common sense", but it's true. I can think up scenarios where they'll
help, but I can also think up scenarious where they hinder. The simple
fact of the matter is that playing the odds for survival they make no
appreciable difference.



Did you say your common sense told you to stop wearing a helmet when cycling
after you read literature claiming a helmet doesn't help in a crash?
Surely Jon has a statistical analysis of fatalities per hour of exposure of
cyclists with and without helmets that you may need to know.

Does your literature or your common sense tell you children don't need to
wear helmets when cycling? Hopefully Jon has a statistical analysis of
fatalities per hour of exposure of child cyclists with and without helmets.
It could be meaningful for children's health in the UK. In much of the USA
it's the law for child cyclists to wear helmets.




And it remains the case that cycling just isn't that dangerous. My
chances of a serious head injury cycling are a little less per unit
distance travelled on a bike in the UK compared to being a pedestrian,
and that's with the benefit of my special segregated sidewalk when I'm
on foot.



In the USA we don't have segregated sidewalks.

"Wilson" wrote

[...] I do put my helmet on before doing the stairs.

Does Burt Reynolds know this?.

In fact, it may have been Jon who suggested there was
statistical proof of more fatalities per hour of exposure
just being at home than when cycling.

Nope.

By the fatality per hour study previously cited, home living
(active) is significantly *less risky* than bicycling. Sleeping
at home makes the odds even better.

I would suggest you stay home, but somebody said most
accidents occur within one half a mile of home. Sounds like a
dangerous place. So I suggest you move. Even better, become
homeless, but spend all your time in a home-like environment,
perhaps in someone else's home, mostly sleeping...

[...] And when I take my bike someplace by auto I now wear my cycling
helmet in the car. Knowing now
that auto bike transport is more dangerous

If you're going to quote the study, make that, "has a greater risk
of fatality per hour of exposure"...

than the cycling, it only stands to reason there would be a greater need
to wear a helmet transporting the bike than when riding the bike. I thank
Jon for making this clear to me.

You're welcome. You'll have to decide whether or not to wear
your seatbelt, too, since in the event of a minor firey crash it may
kill you.

Oh, and just so you don't forget:

Cycling is not particularly dangerous.

Jon