Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:26:28 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2014 1:13 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Snipped
Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above,
say there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles
ridden between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate
how long it will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to
post it here, if you like.
-- - Frank Krygowski
If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.
Sir, you _really_ need to learn something about the mathematics of
probability, about means and standard deviations and data analysis.


-- - Frank Krygowski

Frank, I understand themathematics of probability. Unfortunately for
many bicyclist those bicyclists get hit and seriously injured or
killed LONG BEFORE they get the miles racked up that staistics claim
tyhey need before they need to worry about being injured or killed.

What makes cycling different, in that regard, from any other activity
that has some risk?

What we are aparently seeing is an INCREASE in distracted motor
vehicle drivers and with that comes an increase in bicyclists getting
hit by motor vehicles. Some of us would like to see bicycling be more
safe than it is. That does NOT mean we are shouting "DANGER! DANGER!"

Where is the data showing this increase? There's been a lot of
speculation that cell phones, etc., will cause an increase, but
I'm not aware of data that backs this up.

--
Joe Riel

James writes:

On 27/10/14 16:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above, say
there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate how long it
will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to post it here, if you
like.


If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then there would never be a bicycling fatality.


I guess an alternate *meaning* of the statistic is that if 8 million
people each rode a mile there would be a 50% chance of one dying.

That's the idea, but the 50% is slightly incorrect. Assume probability
of an event per trial is 1/n. If we perform n trials, the probability
that the event never occurs is (1-1/n)^n. For n large, this is exp(-1).
So probability of one or my dying is approximately 1-exp(-1), or about
63%.

"Chances are it wont be me.", is Frank's thinking. He's right of
course. It's like not wanting to winning a lottery, where you can
sway the odds to be less likely to win. Many people try, some win a
dividend (fall off and skin their knee), while sometimes someone wins
the jackpot (gets hit by a car and dies). Often these winners could
have done something to be less likely to win and get hurt.

--
Joe Riel

Joe Riel wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:26:28 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2014 1:13 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Snipped
Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above,
say there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles
ridden between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate
how long it will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to
post it here, if you like.
-- - Frank Krygowski
If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.
Sir, you _really_ need to learn something about the mathematics of
probability, about means and standard deviations and data analysis.


-- - Frank Krygowski

Frank, I understand themathematics of probability. Unfortunately for
many bicyclist those bicyclists get hit and seriously injured or
killed LONG BEFORE they get the miles racked up that staistics claim
tyhey need before they need to worry about being injured or killed.

What makes cycling different, in that regard, from any other activity
that has some risk?

What we are aparently seeing is an INCREASE in distracted motor
vehicle drivers and with that comes an increase in bicyclists getting
hit by motor vehicles. Some of us would like to see bicycling be more
safe than it is. That does NOT mean we are shouting "DANGER! DANGER!"

Where is the data showing this increase? There's been a lot of
speculation that cell phones, etc., will cause an increase, but
I'm not aware of data that backs this up.

You're kidding right?

First Google hit:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...acted_driving/


--
duane

Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 27/10/14 16:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above, say
there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate how long it
will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to post it here, if you
like.


If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.


I guess an alternate *meaning* of the statistic is that if 8 million
people each rode a mile there would be a 50% chance of one dying.

That's the idea, but the 50% is slightly incorrect. Assume probability
of an event per trial is 1/n. If we perform n trials, the probability
that the event never occurs is (1-1/n)^n. For n large, this is exp(-1).
So probability of one or my dying is approximately 1-exp(-1), or about
63%.


Right. So how do you explain 700 deaths in the US?

But what if you take the number of cycling deaths per number of cyclists?
How does this correspond with the known death rate?

What about serious injuries per cyclist?


"Chances are it wont be me.", is Frank's thinking. He's right of
course. It's like not wanting to winning a lottery, where you can
sway the odds to be less likely to win. Many people try, some win a
dividend (fall off and skin their knee), while sometimes someone wins
the jackpot (gets hit by a car and dies). Often these winners could
have done something to be less likely to win and get hurt.



--
duane

Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 26 Oct 2014
12:42:15 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2014 18:30, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2014 17:30, Joerg wrote:

He does not. Or are you allowed to ride yours on freeways
(motorways)?

Motorways aren't public highways. ALL use of them is permissive.
In the places where public highways have been converted to motorways,
provision has to be made to allow passage to non-motorway traffic,
usually by building a parallel road - which is actually cheaper than
extinguishing a public right-of-way.
In the UK, that's true of all motor vehicle use even on those public
highways where they are permitted.
Cyclists have a right-of-way on any public highway other than a public
footpath, and they may have permissive use even of those (in the same
way as motor vehicles may have permissive use on larger public
highways).

What is the equivalent of freeways (US) or autobahns (Germany)
called in
the UK? Are you allowed to travel on those by bicycle?
Motorway, no, and this is a good thing IMO.

Yes, I think so as well. Out here in the US it may be a bit easier and
on some you can ride the shoulder lane (emergency lane) with a bicycle
but it gets dicey and on/offramps.


Motorways are defined in law as "restricted roads", and aren't public
highways at all. There is no right-of-way along them for anyone at
all - all use is permissive.

Interesting. Who pays for them and how? It's been too long ago, I can't
remember ever having to pay a toll over in the UK other than for
ferries. But it was mostly Scotland for me, maybe that's different.
Same as autobahns - paid for out of taxes.

So then they are public highways?
No, they're special roads. It's a terminology thing, but you don't have
the same rights to be on a motorway as you do on a highway.

Ok, but its probably the same right for everybody, provided they have an
appropriate vehicle.

But use of any vehicle that is permitted on a motorway is also only
permitted - i.e. you need permission, or in other words, a license.
This is not a right, and can be withdrawn.


Of course you need a driver's license. That's the same in pretty much
all countries.


In that case the use would them should
not be permissive but taxpayers should have the right. Because they paid
for them.
As a taxpayer I've paid for the RAF airfields - doesn't mean I've got
the right to go onto them. Similarly I've paid for the motorways, but
they're not a public highway.

That's only because you don't have the Spitfire fighter that's required
to get onto one of those :-)

I still couldn't even when I was flying appropriate aircraft directly
overhead.
I could have got permission to, and in one former job, it would have
been mine for the asking (I was working for the RAF). But I still
couldn't just turn up without a very, very good excuse (like engine
failure or smoke in the cockpit while passing overhead).


Those are purpose-built structures, in this case the purpose is defense.
Just like you are not allowed to build a rail -bicycle and use it to
cuise into a London train station via the tracks.

Roads are different. It would not be righteous to open them to some
drivers but not others with same vehicle class. In California they tried
to pull off something like that, car pool lane use by single occupants
only for the affluent. Needless to say that resulted in enough uproar to
get this shelved.


I've been granted permission to use the motorway - it's permissive.

But isn't it just like any other road where the government can say "This
kind of vehicle is allowed here" and "that other type of vehicle is not
allowed"? That's the same for many other roadways where they put up
signs. For example, they might ban bicyclists and tanker trucks from
treacherous underpasses, for different reasons.

The point is that it isn't that way for bicycles.
They have a RIGHT to use public highways.
It can't be withdrawn, and you don't need any form of permission or
license.


Interesting. So I take it your authorities could not put up any signs
such as "bicycles prohibited".


I bet that the government would not have the right to say that anyone
from London can use a particular motorway but people from Berwickshire
can't.

No, but they can take away the permission to use motor vehicles.


That would result in a major gathering of people with pitchforks and
such at your parliament buildings.


Although that being gradually getting watered down at least in
parts of continental Europe where they start charging tolls per mile or
kilometer.
Not "gradually" or "start" - French Autoroutes have always been tolled.
Italian Autostrada possibly too. There's a tolled section of the M6 in
the UK too. I've never used it :-)

In Austria they were taxpayer funded but then the government started
requiring that users pay up and buy a toll token. I think it's called
vignette. In Germany they are now mulling the same idea.

Tolls (and motoring specific taxes) only ever act as a subsidy, they
never cover the full cost.


Out here (US) they are a major "revenue" generator. To the point where
people sleep in their cars to avoid the toll between shifts.

Anyhow, I do not wish to live in such highly urban places or areas with
tons of traffic. I like trails.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 28/10/14 09:14, Duane wrote:
Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 27/10/14 16:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above, say
there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate how long it
will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to post it here, if you
like.


If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.


I guess an alternate *meaning* of the statistic is that if 8 million
people each rode a mile there would be a 50% chance of one dying.

That's the idea, but the 50% is slightly incorrect. Assume probability
of an event per trial is 1/n. If we perform n trials, the probability
that the event never occurs is (1-1/n)^n. For n large, this is exp(-1).
So probability of one or my dying is approximately 1-exp(-1), or about
63%.


Thanks Joe.


Right. So how do you explain 700 deaths in the US?


There are about 316 million in the US. Mode share is maybe 2%? If so,
6.32 million people ride a bicycle, probably more than 1 mile daily.

You can see, to reach 700 deaths annually, there needs to be about 2
deaths per day. Chances are, with more than 6 million people each
riding at least a couple of miles a day on average, there's a good
chance of an average of 2 deaths per day.

But what if you take the number of cycling deaths per number of cyclists?
How does this correspond with the known death rate?

What about serious injuries per cyclist?

There is often a ratio of injuries requiring hospitalisation (which is
probably as good metric for "serious" as any).

Here we have about 10 deaths per year, and 6.9% of total injuries
requiring hospitalisation from a population of 5621 of all road users,
or 388 injured cyclists.

http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=!padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=pie&y-axis=Road+user&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&meta_ d3year=2013&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta_d4 year=2013&clive=tac-injuries-xml

That gets us close to 40:1. The ratio has been on the increase. More
riders in the city suffering non-fatal crashes requiring a visit to
hospital. Thank goodness for lower speed limits. The death count
hasn't increased significantly for some years, however the injuries have
about doubled in 10 years, IIRC.

I'll assume the US data is not vastly different, and so for 700 deaths,
I'd expect about 28,000 serious injuries.

--
JS

Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 26.10.2014 20:42, schrieb Joerg:
Clive George wrote:

I've been granted permission to use the motorway - it's permissive.

But isn't it just like any other road where the government can say "This
kind of vehicle is allowed here" and "that other type of vehicle is not
allowed"? That's the same for many other roadways where they put up
signs. For example, they might ban bicyclists and tanker trucks from
treacherous underpasses, for different reasons.

That's precicely the difference between 'permissive use' and 'public
right-of-way'. In UK legal history (I believe this is part of the Magna
Charta), there is no entity that can forbid the use of public
highways(or bridleways or footpaths) to any person or horse rider (not
even the king); cyclists have managed to gain a legal status equal to
horse riders.


Interesting. Here in the US we don't. On the trails I have to stop and
if needed even step off my bike when approaching a horse. But I'd do
that anyhow and I like horses.


In the UK, it is not possible for a legal authority to forbid cyclists
from using a certain underpass of a public highway (it is only possible
to build a new underpass disallowing bicycles and ensure that it does
not turn into a public highway).

Motor vehicles only have 'permissive use' of the road, i.e. it is legal
to withdraw permission under certain cirumstances (e.g. maximum weight
for bridges, or dirt roads can completely forbid motor vehicles).


That's the same here, most of the "roads" I bicycle are off limits for
any motorized vehicles although some go through there anyhow.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 28/10/14 09:42, James wrote:
On 28/10/14 09:14, Duane wrote:
Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 27/10/14 16:13, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above, say
there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles ridden
between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate how long it
will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to post it here,
if you
like.


If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.


I guess an alternate *meaning* of the statistic is that if 8 million
people each rode a mile there would be a 50% chance of one dying.

That's the idea, but the 50% is slightly incorrect. Assume probability
of an event per trial is 1/n. If we perform n trials, the probability
that the event never occurs is (1-1/n)^n. For n large, this is exp(-1).
So probability of one or my dying is approximately 1-exp(-1), or about
63%.


Thanks Joe.


Right. So how do you explain 700 deaths in the US?


There are about 316 million in the US. Mode share is maybe 2%? If so,
6.32 million people ride a bicycle, probably more than 1 mile daily.

You can see, to reach 700 deaths annually, there needs to be about 2
deaths per day. Chances are, with more than 6 million people each
riding at least a couple of miles a day on average, there's a good
chance of an average of 2 deaths per day.

But what if you take the number of cycling deaths per number of cyclists?
How does this correspond with the known death rate?

What about serious injuries per cyclist?

There is often a ratio of injuries requiring hospitalisation (which is
probably as good metric for "serious" as any).

Here we have about 10 deaths per year, and 6.9% of total injuries
requiring hospitalisation from a population of 5621 of all road users,
or 388 injured cyclists.

http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=!padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=pie&y-axis=Road+user&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&meta_ d3year=2013&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta_d4 year=2013&clive=tac-injuries-xml


That gets us close to 40:1. The ratio has been on the increase. More
riders in the city suffering non-fatal crashes requiring a visit to
hospital. Thank goodness for lower speed limits. The death count
hasn't increased significantly for some years, however the injuries have
about doubled in 10 years, IIRC.

I'll assume the US data is not vastly different, and so for 700 deaths,
I'd expect about 28,000 serious injuries.


One thing to note is that the mode share for bicycles is far below the
death and injury share. That is, there are far more deaths and injuries
per bicycling trip than motoring trip (excluding motorcycling).

In a collision or simple fall, we come off second best.

--
JS

Duane writes:

Joe Riel wrote:
Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:26:28 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2014 1:13 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:16:50 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote: Snipped
Cycling deaths are tremendously rare. Your own figures, above,
say there are, on average, between 8 million and 27 million miles
ridden between bike fatalities. You should be able to estimate
how long it will take you to ride 8 million miles. Feel free to
post it here, if you like.
-- - Frank Krygowski
If this were true per individual as you're stating here Frank then
there would never be a bicycling fatality.
Sir, you _really_ need to learn something about the mathematics of
probability, about means and standard deviations and data analysis.


-- - Frank Krygowski

Frank, I understand themathematics of probability. Unfortunately for
many bicyclist those bicyclists get hit and seriously injured or
killed LONG BEFORE they get the miles racked up that staistics claim
tyhey need before they need to worry about being injured or killed.

What makes cycling different, in that regard, from any other activity
that has some risk?

What we are aparently seeing is an INCREASE in distracted motor
vehicle drivers and with that comes an increase in bicyclists getting
hit by motor vehicles. Some of us would like to see bicycling be more
safe than it is. That does NOT mean we are shouting "DANGER! DANGER!"

Where is the data showing this increase? There's been a lot of
speculation that cell phones, etc., will cause an increase, but
I'm not aware of data that backs this up.

You're kidding right?

First Google hit:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...acted_driving/

Did you look at the facts on that page?

"In 2012, 3,328 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted
driver, compared to 3,360 in 2011."

A relative increase of 1%. Do you consider that a significant change?

Like I said, there's a lot of pontificating on this, and it seems
like it could be an issue, but the data I've seen hasn't backed it up.


--
Joe Riel

On 27/10/2014 22:39, Joerg wrote:

I bet that the government would not have the right to say that anyone
from London can use a particular motorway but people from Berwickshire
can't.

No, but they can take away the permission to use motor vehicles.


That would result in a major gathering of people with pitchforks and
such at your parliament buildings.

There's plenty of TROs (traffic regulation order?) about which take away
the permisson to use motor vehicles in plenty of places. No pitchforks.