Sports that inherently injure
Andrew Price
such a way that soreness or injury is prevented and, possibly, athletic
performance is enhanced.
Not going to get into a 'which method is best' debate here, but my
contention is that a well adjusted bike, ridden competently, is unlikely of
itself to injure the rider.
Watching the winter Olympics and in particular the aerial freestyle skiing
(we had 3 female contenders from Oz) I shuddered with several billion other
tv viewers at our lass who landed badly and tore apart her cruciate
ligament - her screams still ring in my ears as they carried her off. The
extraordinary thing was that her 2 compatriots had each already had major
knee reconstructions (these are skiers in their 20s) and they casually
accepted that major and painful surgery went with the territory.
Netball (sort of like fixed position basketball - only played in ex Brit
Cwth countries I think) is another orthopaedic surgeons paradise.
Maybe boxing is a better example of a more widely followed sport inherently
likely to cause serious injury to its participants in the form of brain
damage.
Why is it that we support and do not shun sports that inherently injure the
participants? Cycling strikes me as a sport where the upside of health and
wellbeing from participating vastly outweigh the risks.
The argument for prescribing performance enhancing drugs is I believe
ultimately based on the wish to protect the health and longevity of the
athlete, both those in elite completion and for those that would emulate
them.
Ever increasing restrictions on smoking and moderation of alcohol and
[insert name of other favourite recreational pharmaceutical here] intake are
I believe based on harm minimisation principles, both to the individual and
the society in which they live.
So, if we ban and restrict things that are likely to damage the health of
the participants, why are sports highly likely to injure the participants
allowed to continue, be promoted and above all televised?
I am not arguing for the elimination of all danger - its just that if the
odds are that participation in a sport is more likely than not to seriously
injure the participant, then if we promote that sport we seem to be acting
inconsistently with other major desired social outcomes.
Rant over, normal programming will now resume ...
best, Andrew
Zoot Katz
<arat...@bigpone.net.au.x1> wrote:
>So, if we ban and restrict things that are likely to damage the health of
>the participants, why are sports highly likely to injure the participants
>allowed to continue, be promoted and above all televised?
Injurious entertainment in general is more popular.
Simply count the number of car crashes and shootings piped into every
living room every day.
Extreme downhill and ramp jumping is going to draw a larger audience
than flatland or artistic cycling. Alley-Cat racing is nutz but makes
good video.
I think it might be related to something attributed to Hemmingway
regarding the only true "sports" being bullfighting, motor racing and
mountain climbing. That suggests that it becomes a "sport" when life
itself is in the balance. The other so-called "sports" merely being
"games".
--
zk
Luke
<zoot...@operamail.com> wrote:
I agree with your perspective Zoot. The key term is 'entertainment';
substitute 'sports' with that term and the reasons why all manner of
extreme endeavour are captivating. To the spectator, the prevalence of
risk correlates to the drama of the undertaking, and most professional
sports and competitions are simply dramas in the form of ritualized
combat. The more visceral the danger, the more compelling the theater,
with the most gripping scene being a dance with death.
In the television age the multitudes don't participate but spectate;
and since they need not personally confront the price of their
entertainment, its inherent health risks need not necessarily serve to
discourage. Human nature has not developed apace of our 'civilization';
we're really not so far removed from the gladiatorial combats of the
Romans as we'd like to think.
I don't ski but am captivated by the images of 'Extreme Skiing' and
such, where winning seems incidental to simply surviving a run. A less
hazardous pursuit such as road bicycle racing, where the action takes
much longer to develop and often requires a grounding in tactics and
subtleties to perceive, can be just as entertaining. But it's a
decidedly more cerebral affair compared to the prospect of a mountain
descent at 100+ km/h, which engages me on an instinctive rather than an
intellectual or esthetic level.
Even so, I do identify with the OP in questioning the wisdom of
including excessively risky sports in the Olympics. It signals, if not
an outright breach, then an indifference to Olympic precepts and their
espousal of the balanced development of body, mind and character.
Conversely, if one considers the Olympic Games to be the spectacular
gala that they've become, I can't but consider that the inclusion of
such entertainment makes perfect sense.
Luke
Rich
> Ever increasing restrictions on smoking and moderation of alcohol and
> [insert name of other favourite recreational pharmaceutical here] intake are
> I believe based on harm minimisation principles, both to the individual and
> the society in which they live.
>
> So, if we ban and restrict things that are likely to damage the health of
> the participants, why are sports highly likely to injure the participants
> allowed to continue, be promoted and above all televised?
We ban and restrict things that are likely to damage the health of those
around the participants, not the participants themselves.
Advertisers pay for viewers. Viewers like wathing things that look
dangerous. And things that look dangerous often are.
Rich
Peter Cole
> I confess to an interest in the positioning of riders, esp on road bikes, in
> such a way that soreness or injury is prevented and, possibly, athletic
> performance is enhanced.
>
> Not going to get into a 'which method is best' debate here, but my
> contention is that a well adjusted bike, ridden competently, is unlikely of
> itself to injure the rider.
The bike may not injure the rider, but cycling frequently does. In a
survey of club riders, it was found that serious accidents happened
about every 10K miles. For an enthusiastic rider that's every couple of
years. I know lots of people who have broken bones riding, a few who
were hospitalized, a few facially disfigured and one who became
paralyzed neck down. I've never crashed a road bike in the perhaps
50-100K miles I've ridden, but I have broken bones twice off-road.
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> Why is it that we support and do not shun sports that inherently injure the
> participants?
Inertia? One of the worst offenders in this respect is figure skating.
How many other sports center on the use of century-old technology?
Because standard skates do not allow for ankle flex, knee, hip, and back
injuries to skaters abound. Remember Tara Lipinski from Nagano? Ever
wonder why she isn't still skating? Three word answer: hip replacement
surgery.
What's sad is that there IS a new type skate available that lets the
ankle flex, but they're taking their sweet time adopting it.
Bill, pushing 10k mi. on the new bike and starting to worry
__o | Patriotism is supporting your country all the time
_`\(,_ | and your government when it deserves it.
(_)/ (_) | --Mark Twain
Bill Baka
Considering that meaningless shows like 'Fear Factor' or 'Survivor' and
other 'reality' shows have survived, consider the intellect of the
viewers. It is shows like this that are causing my television to only
get used a few times a week, mostly the Discovery or History channels.
I just can't go brain dead enough to watch most of the junk on these
days. People probably watch the Olympics just to see if someone wipes
out, not to mention that there is hardly anything else on. Michelle Kwan
is used up by injuries at 25. How many others that never made it to the
Olympics now have lifelong injuries? You never hear about the 10 to 14
year olds that permanently injure themselves training to become an
Olympic hopeful.
Bill
Bob
>
> Why is it that we support and do not shun sports that inherently injure the
> participants? Cycling strikes me as a sport where the upside of health and
> wellbeing from participating vastly outweigh the risks.
The sports you refer to- extreme skiing, boxing, etcetera- are not
engaged in by that many people. They are, for most, *spectator* sports
and what you seem to find objectionable is simply human nature. Risk
and danger always attract us, especially when we can experience someone
else's risk and danger vicariously.
> The argument for prescribing performance enhancing drugs is I believe
> ultimately based on the wish to protect the health and longevity of the
> athlete, both those in elite completion and for those that would emulate
> them.
>
I had to read this twice. You *do* mean proscribing, right? ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
frkr...@gmail.com
Andrew Price wrote:
>
> Why is it that we support and do not shun sports that inherently injure the
> participants? Cycling strikes me as a sport where the upside of health and
> wellbeing from participating vastly outweigh the risks.
If you're claiming that society is inconsistent - or schizoid - in its
attitude toward risk, I certainly agree. Half the car commercials seem
to focus on the cusiony safety of a 4000+ pound vehicle with four wheel
drive and air bags in every crevice. The other half feature vehicles
sliding sideways barely under control. And sometimes those are in the
same commecial.
And you're certainly right about the idea of assessing benefits as well
as detriments. People who coccoon themselves in their nice safe cars
have lower life expectancies than people out commuting by bike.
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
Peter Cole wrote:
>
> The bike may not injure the rider, but cycling frequently does. In a
> survey of club riders, it was found that serious accidents happened
> about every 10K miles.
In his 1994 paper, William Moritz defined a "serious" crash as one that
caused $50 worth of damage, or required medical treatment. He found
that League of American Bicyclists members had one of those every 11
years, or once every 32,000 miles. And keep in mind, a bend derailleur
or torn cycling jacket would count as "serious" by that standard - IOW,
I believe the standard was set too low for the term "serious."
See Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States - Characteristics
and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the Transportation Research
Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998
> For an enthusiastic rider that's every couple of
> years.
That depends on the cyclist, obviously, but it's not true on average.
See above.
> I know lots of people who have broken bones riding, a few who
> were hospitalized, a few facially disfigured and one who became
> paralyzed neck down. I've never crashed a road bike in the perhaps
> 50-100K miles I've ridden, but I have broken bones twice off-road.
As the OP implied, and I agreed, we are somewhat crazy about risk.
Mountain biking itself is a good example. For many riders, the actual
point of mountain biking is to ride on the edge of control, and that's
the way the sport is publicized. It should come as no surprise that a
contingent riding on the edge of control is going to frequently have a
member go over the edge.
IMO, mountain biking should be looked at as an activity separate from
ordinary road riding. The two activities are completely different in
regard to their participants' characteristics, their uses and their
risks.
As to the "I know lots of people" idea, it's a poor way to judge
relative risk. I've lost count of the people I know who were killed in
car crashes. I've known several who got significant head injuries in
cars, but survived. Should we be claiming driving is unsafe?
We _must_ accept some risk in life. When assessing any activity, it
makes sense to evaluate the balance of benefit to risk. And it makes
sense to use comparative data, not to count people you happen to know.
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
Peter Cole wrote:
>
> The bike may not injure the rider, but cycling frequently does. In a
> survey of club riders, it was found that serious accidents happened
> about every 10K miles.
In his 1994 paper, William Moritz defined a "serious" crash as one that
caused $50 worth of damage, or required medical treatment. He found
that League of American Bicyclists members had one of those every 11
years, or once every 32,000 miles. And keep in mind, a bend derailleur
or torn cycling jacket would count as "serious" by that standard - IOW,
I believe the standard was set too low for the term "serious."
See Moritz, W. Adult Bicyclists in the United States - Characteristics
and Riding Experience in 1996, presented at the Transportation Research
Board 77th Annual Meeting, 1998
> For an enthusiastic rider that's every couple of
> years.
That depends on the cyclist, obviously, but it's not true on average.
See above.
> I know lots of people who have broken bones riding, a few who
> were hospitalized, a few facially disfigured and one who became
> paralyzed neck down. I've never crashed a road bike in the perhaps
> 50-100K miles I've ridden, but I have broken bones twice off-road.
As the OP implied, and I agreed, we are somewhat crazy about risk.
Bill Baka
Adrenaline is the whole point of my insane descents, but I have to earn
it by pedaling or dragging my bike up there in the first place. I also
don't do it on the edge of a cliff since I would rather just crash and
tumble on the rocks than go flying without a parachute.
>
> IMO, mountain biking should be looked at as an activity separate from
> ordinary road riding. The two activities are completely different in
> regard to their participants' characteristics, their uses and their
> risks.
There are different off road activities, one of which is riding the dirt
and sand trails by the river I live near. The biggest hill there is
about 30 feet high and there is sand so soft at the bottom that bicycles
and motorcycles both wash out and wipe out in it. That happened to me
last year and as I was getting up a guy come blasting down on a
motorcycle and repeated my performance. We were both spitting out sand
and laughing, unhurt but mouths, ears, noses, and bikes packed with sand.
>
>
> As to the "I know lots of people" idea, it's a poor way to judge
> relative risk. I've lost count of the people I know who were killed in
> car crashes. I've known several who got significant head injuries in
> cars, but survived. Should we be claiming driving is unsafe?
Yes. My daughter drives small cars and has been hit 3 times in 4 years
by SUVs of pickup trucks who were not paying attention to the lesser
vehicles on the road. Twice she was parked at a light and once was hit
by a red light runner. Like most other people I too have lost friends in
car accidents, and a few in motorcycle accidents, none yet on a bicycle.
Life is inherently unsafe but you can't live in a shell.
Bill Baka
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>The bike may not injure the rider, but cycling frequently does. In a
>>survey of club riders, it was found that serious accidents happened
>>about every 10K miles.
>
>
> In his 1994 paper, William Moritz defined a "serious" crash as one that
> caused $50 worth of damage, or required medical treatment. He found
> that League of American Bicyclists members had one of those every 11
> years, or once every 32,000 miles.
>
>
>>years.
>
>
> That depends on the cyclist, obviously, but it's not true on average.
> See above.
Perhaps, but his study population hardly reflects the average and is
highly biased towards mature, organized cyclists (who else would belong
to LAB?)
"The 'average' respondent was a 48 [45/38] year-old, married (66%)
[62%/-] male (80%) [74%/88%] professional (48%) [48%/-] with a college
degree (80%) [81%/-]. More than 53% [46%/-] reported a household income
in excess of $60K/year."
>>I know lots of people who have broken bones riding, a few who
>>were hospitalized, a few facially disfigured and one who became
>>paralyzed neck down. I've never crashed a road bike in the perhaps
>>50-100K miles I've ridden, but I have broken bones twice off-road.
>
> Mountain biking itself is a good example. For many riders, the actual
> point of mountain biking is to ride on the edge of control, and that's
> the way the sport is publicized.
Have you done this, or are you just going on TV commercials?
> As to the "I know lots of people" idea, it's a poor way to judge
> relative risk. I've lost count of the people I know who were killed in
> car crashes. I've known several who got significant head injuries in
> cars, but survived. Should we be claiming driving is unsafe?
Yes, definitely. An equivalent carnage toll would require 40 Iraqs.
> We _must_ accept some risk in life. When assessing any activity, it
> makes sense to evaluate the balance of benefit to risk. And it makes
> sense to use comparative data, not to count people you happen to know.
Do you accept Morris's other conclusion in his study of commuters --
that bike paths have half the "danger index" of streets?
frkr...@gmail.com
Peter Cole wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> >>The bike may not injure the rider, but cycling frequently does. In a
> >>survey of club riders, it was found that serious accidents happened
> >>about every 10K miles.
> >
> >
> > In his 1994 paper, William Moritz defined a "serious" crash as one that
> > caused $50 worth of damage, or required medical treatment. He found
> > that League of American Bicyclists members had one of those every 11
> > years, or once every 32,000 miles.
> >
> >
> >>For an enthusiastic rider that's every couple of
> >>years.
> >
> >
> > That depends on the cyclist, obviously, but it's not true on average.
> > See above.
>
>
> Perhaps, but his study population hardly reflects the average and is
> highly biased towards mature, organized cyclists (who else would belong
> to LAB?)
Sure. But above, _you_ claimed it was 10k miles, and _you_ talked
about it being just a couple years for enthusiastic riders.
If you want to produce data for enthusiastic riders who are not mature
and organized, I'd be interested in seeing it. But so far, the data
I've seen says you are overstating the minimal dangers of cycling. We
get that a lot.
Anyone interested in testing their knowledge of cycling's safety can
try http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
FWIW, I'm more mature than I want to be, but I'm pretty disorganized.
;-) My record is one on-road fall in 33 years of adult riding, and
that fall was at a walking pace.
> >
> > Mountain biking itself is a good example. For many riders, the actual
> > point of mountain biking is to ride on the edge of control, and that's
> > the way the sport is publicized.
>
> Have you done this, or are you just going on TV commercials?
Have I done mountain biking? Yes, definitely. I've fallen many times
mountain biking (no injuries, though). I have many friends that have
fallen, and I've watched some of them break bones. These days, my
mountain biking is more tame - but read a mountain bike magazine
sometime to check out its image, if you're not familiar with it.
- Frank Krygowski
r15...@aol.com
> If you want to produce data for enthusiastic riders who are not mature
> and organized, I'd be interested in seeing it. But so far, the data
> I've seen says you are overstating the minimal dangers of cycling. We
> get that a lot.
What little data there is for non-mature, non-organized
riders seems to indicate that they crash at more than
five times the rate of those in the Moritz survey, who
averaged 14+ years of experience. But you
must know that quite well by now.
> Have I done mountain biking? Yes, definitely. I've fallen many times
> mountain biking (no injuries, though). I have many friends that have
> fallen, and I've watched some of them break bones. These days, my
> mountain biking is more tame - but read a mountain bike magazine
> sometime to check out its image, if you're not familiar with it.
It does not follow that road riding is 'safer' than
mountain biking. Any rider with real trail experience
and real traffic experience will say they feel more secure
on the trail, because, even though the surface may
be dicey, on the trail they have only to account
for themselves and their bike, and need not worry
about any human beings driving their large
vehicles into them. Trail riding takes traffic out
of the equation and could therefore be said to
be 'safer' than road riding.
Robert
Tom Keats
r15...@aol.com writes:
> Trail riding takes traffic out
> of the equation and could therefore be said to
> be 'safer' than road riding.
Assuming you've got the trail pretty much to yourself.
On the trails here, one could be blithely minding one's
own business and suddenly another rider bursts out of the
bushes like a startled pheasant, catching some pretty good
air as they swoop across your line. Just as you're recovering
from the surprise, another one behind the first does the same.
And ya don't hear 'em coming. When that happens it's generally
a good idea to be alert for the other other shoe dropping.
Maybe the lack of car traffic on trails can give riders a
misplaced overconfidence?
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
r15...@aol.com
Tom Keats wrote:
> Assuming you've got the trail pretty much to yourself.
> On the trails here, one could be blithely minding one's
> own business and suddenly another rider bursts out of the
> bushes like a startled pheasant, catching some pretty good
> air as they swoop across your line. Just as you're recovering
> from the surprise, another one behind the first does the same.
> And ya don't hear 'em coming. When that happens it's generally
> a good idea to be alert for the other other shoe dropping.
>
> Maybe the lack of car traffic on trails can give riders a
> misplaced overconfidence?
Yes, but even if you do collide
with that other rider, the resulting set
of possible injuries is still going to be
a milder set than those that typically result
from car-bike collisions on the street/road.
But you do make a good point. I once
collided with a motorcycle on a blind
singletrack curve on a very windy day.
Could've been really ugly--consider the
time and distance from professional
medical attention on many mountain
trails.
Still, the forest is ultimately safer than the
street.
Robert
frkr...@gmail.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you want to produce data for enthusiastic riders who are not mature
> > and organized, I'd be interested in seeing it. But so far, the data
> > I've seen says you are overstating the minimal dangers of cycling. We
> > get that a lot.
>
> What little data there is for non-mature, non-organized
> riders seems to indicate that they crash at more than
> five times the rate of those in the Moritz survey, who
> averaged 14+ years of experience. But you
> must know that quite well by now.
Actually, I don't recall any _data_ that said that - but I don't have
those references with me here. Isn't that five-to-one figure one of
Forester's approximations? Do you have the original data that proves
it, or the URL (or library reference) that points to the data?
>
> > Have I done mountain biking? Yes, definitely. I've fallen many times
> > mountain biking (no injuries, though). I have many friends that have
> > fallen, and I've watched some of them break bones. These days, my
> > mountain biking is more tame - but read a mountain bike magazine
> > sometime to check out its image, if you're not familiar with it.
>
> It does not follow that road riding is 'safer' than
> mountain biking. Any rider with real trail experience
> and real traffic experience will say they feel more secure
> on the trail ...
We should not be asking whether people _feel_ safer, but rather whether
they actually _are_ safer. IIRC, there's data that shows that (for
example) sidwalk riding is much more dangerous than riding on the road.
Yet lots of people mistakenly feel safer on a sidewalk.
> ... because, even though the surface may
> be dicey, on the trail they have only to account
> for themselves and their bike, and need not worry
> about any human beings driving their large
> vehicles into them. Trail riding takes traffic out
> of the equation and could therefore be said to
> be 'safer' than road riding.
If you're talking about mountain biking, or riding on isolated MUPs, I
agree the fatalities per mile or fatalities per hour will be lower than
street riding. My guess is the number of "injuries," however they
might be defined (bruises? scratches? trips to ER?) are higher for
mountain biking, though.
One of our problems is the lack of a simple definition of "safer." If
something had, say, 10 times the likelihood of a trip to the ER, but
one tenth the likelihood of a trip to the morgue compared to a
different activity, is it "safer" or "more dangerous"? What if the
respective ratios were ten times and one hundredth?
IMO, when comparing chances of fatality in various types of bicycling,
you're comparing infinitesmals. The chance of fatality is too low for
a rational person to worry about, so there's no sense crunching those
numbers any further. And I think that with any reasonable amount of
caution and common sense, the risk of truly serious injury is similarly
low. (But you knew that!)
The item that interests me is whether we should be promoting
flamboyantly risky behavior. At the very least, I think it's crazy to
do that while obsessing about kids falling off bikes in their driveway!
- Frank Krygowski
Dane Buson
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If you want to produce data for enthusiastic riders who are not mature
>> and organized, I'd be interested in seeing it. But so far, the data
>> I've seen says you are overstating the minimal dangers of cycling. We
>> get that a lot.
>
> What little data there is for non-mature, non-organized
> riders seems to indicate that they crash at more than
> five times the rate of those in the Moritz survey, who
> averaged 14+ years of experience. But you
> must know that quite well by now.
A group ride with some bike hooligans I ride with occasionally recently
swept up with a few dislocations and broken bones. This is in pretty
marked contrast to something like the LAB riders Frank is talking about.
On the other hand, I *know* that strong drink was involved and that most
of this group manage to cycle by themselves with a fairly low accident
rate.
Hmmm, I think mine is sort of an orthagonal post to the topic at hand.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"Order your summers suit. Because is big rush we will
execute customers in strict rotation."
-In a Rhodes tailor shop
Bill Baka
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you want to produce data for enthusiastic riders who are not mature
>>>and organized, I'd be interested in seeing it. But so far, the data
>>>I've seen says you are overstating the minimal dangers of cycling. We
>>>get that a lot.
>>
>>What little data there is for non-mature, non-organized
>>riders seems to indicate that they crash at more than
>>five times the rate of those in the Moritz survey, who
>>averaged 14+ years of experience. But you
>>must know that quite well by now.
>
>
> A group ride with some bike hooligans I ride with occasionally recently
> swept up with a few dislocations and broken bones. This is in pretty
> marked contrast to something like the LAB riders Frank is talking about.
> On the other hand, I *know* that strong drink was involved and that most
> of this group manage to cycle by themselves with a fairly low accident
> rate.
>
> Hmmm, I think mine is sort of an orthagonal post to the topic at hand.
>
adrenalin junkies looking to grab some air, get noticed, and get into a
competition. Look at Motocross and how they ride, begging for a trip to
the ER. When you get together with a bunch of 'hooligans' they can get
hurt just walking, as has happened with some of my friends of days gone
by. We were hiking and drinking, not to mention the cloud of smoke
around us when someone noticed one of us was missing. He zoned out and
walked off a small cliff. We found him at the bottom with a sprained
ankle and had to lug him back to our campsite. Anything can be made as
safe or as dangerous as you make it for yourself.
Skydiving. Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane?
Bill
RonSonic
>As the OP implied, and I agreed, we are somewhat crazy about risk.
>Mountain biking itself is a good example. For many riders, the actual
>point of mountain biking is to ride on the edge of control, and that's
>the way the sport is publicized. It should come as no surprise that a
>contingent riding on the edge of control is going to frequently have a
>member go over the edge.
>
>IMO, mountain biking should be looked at as an activity separate from
>ordinary road riding. The two activities are completely different in
>regard to their participants' characteristics, their uses and their
>risks.
I wouldn't be too certain about that. The media and beverage commercials focus
on the "extreme" (words cannot describe my growing contempt for that word)
aspect, but most of the people I see on bikes in the woods are going on nature
walks without all that walking. As a CX and XC rider/racer my profile's a lot
more like a road rider than some ski lift lunatic with a motorless motorcycle.
Ron
Luke
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It does not follow that road riding is 'safer' than
> > mountain biking. Any rider with real trail experience
> > and real traffic experience will say they feel more secure
> > on the trail ...
>
> We should not be asking whether people _feel_ safer, but rather whether
> they actually _are_ safer. IIRC, there's data that shows that (for
> example) sidwalk riding is much more dangerous than riding on the road.
> Yet lots of people mistakenly feel safer on a sidewalk.
I was involved in a thread discussing just this issue. For those
interested, please follow the link[1]. The thread references a study[2]
of car and bicycle accidents in Toronto between '97 and '98; its
conclusion "Chapter 4: Conclusions PDF" is of particular interest.
Luke
_______________
1.
http://tinyurl.com/l3m4e
or
http://groups.google.ca/group/bc.cycling/browse_frm/thread/4197e49fb29cf
12f/0eda4f2f32957501?lnk=st&q=lucasiragusa+universe&rnum=1&hl=en#0eda4f2
f32957501
2.
http://tinyurl.com/6ywuj
or
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/
index.htm
Bill Baka
I have to agree with Ron here, since some of those commercials are the
'extreme' of stupid. The guy crashing down a hill just to shake up his
drink, for instance does not motivate me to buy that product. Extreme
sports seem to be for the 'extreme'ly stupid. There appear also to be
very few extreme sports types over the age of 25, small wonder. As for
mountain biking I am also doing a nature walk on or carrying my bike. It
is only on the descents that I ride the very steep parts and on some of
those I am by no means dumb enough to try riding a 30%+ downhill over
jagged rocks. That is where I lug the bike back down, carefully. As for
motorcycles, I used to thoroughly enjoy getting sideways under throttle
on an oval dirt track at about 35 MPH, and it really was not that
dangerous if you went down and slid on the dirt, mostly embarrassing.
I never did try serious motocross since I don't like being 50 feet in
the air with a questionable landing ahead.
All things with moderation and a little common sense!
Bill
Bob
> Extreme
> sports seem to be for the 'extreme'ly stupid. There appear also to be
> very few extreme sports types over the age of 25, small wonder.
>
I can't recall who said it but it went something like-
"Extreme? What's so extreme about a teenager or twentysomething base
jumping or downhill skiing at 80 mph? Their bones heal fast and they
haven't yet figured out that they aren't immortal. Extreme is a forty
or fiftysomething guy shoveling his own driveway after a big
snowstorm."
Regards,
Bob Hunt
frkr...@gmail.com
Bob wrote:
> Extreme is a forty
> or fiftysomething guy shoveling his own driveway after a big
> snowstorm."
Ah! I was just about to go out and shovel the drive, but you've talked
me out of it.
I'll tell my wife to take her complaints to you. ;-)
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Baka
I lived in both Chicago (born there) and Minnesota (at 44) and found the
exercise most refreshing. Chopping oak wood for the 3 stoves in my over
sized house had me sweating with no shirt in 15 degrees (F) and I was
enjoying that too. The only drawback was getting up at 3:00 A.M. and
shoveling my driveway until time to go to work and just then the city
plow came along and most of you know the rest.
Teenagers bones do heal faster as long as they don't break all of them
at once, at which point they probably do realize a little too late they
are not, in fact, immortal. I just try to stay in better shape than my
peers of the same age, which is not hard when they plop in front of the
television with a beer after work. Well, not MY peers, exactly.
Bill
Andrew Price
Bob Hunt wrote -
>Extreme is a forty or fiftysomething guy shoveling his own driveway after a
>big
> snowstorm."
>
Or pinning a number on your back at 51 next Saturday in a club criterium on
a dodgy course with insufficient training.
Oh death where is thy sting?
best, Andrew
Luke
Price <arat...@bigpone.net.au.x1> wrote:
Numbed by that fourth glass of red? Or fifth?
Pat Lamb
Now THAT would be extreme!
Pat
r15...@aol.com
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually, I don't recall any _data_ that said that - but I don't have
> those references with me here. Isn't that five-to-one figure one of
> Forester's approximations? Do you have the original data that proves
> it, or the URL (or library reference) that points to the data?
It is Forester's number based on Kaplan, the CTC survey,
a survey of college students, and one of younger kids
whose authors I forget (Schupeck, Driessen ?). I don't
have the references in front of me now but I can get them
later on if you want. Forester graphed the results of
these surveys and showed a steep decline in accidents/
mile as experience progressed. He estimated that
10 years of experience would cut a rider's accident
rate by about 80%. This is in Bicycle Transportation:
blah blah blah MIT Press. He didnt use the
Moritz survey but its results could fit nicely
along that curve as well.
Now, you know how I feel about this sort of
accident rate 'data'--sketchy at best--then Forester
combines all these very different surveys onto
one graph which compounds the sketchiness.
But the numbers, while they can only be seen
as approximations at best, nonetheless confirm
what experienced riders already understand, that
accident rates decrease with experience, and that
beginning riders will have much higher accident
rates than the old hands of the Moritz survey.
> We should not be asking whether people _feel_ safer, but rather whether
> they actually _are_ safer.
Agreed, and I contend that riders actually _are_ safer
on a singletrack trail than on the street, all
things considered.
You are talking about the feelings of
inexperienced riders. I'm talking about
the feelings of experienced riders. Their
feelings are based on, eh, experience, and
so are usually correct.
> IIRC, there's data that shows that (for
> example) sidwalk riding is much more dangerous than riding on the road.
> Yet lots of people mistakenly feel safer on a sidewalk.
Sidewalk riding is actually not as dangerous
as riding on the road, technically speaking. What's
dangerous about it is the crossing of vehicular intersections,
IOW momentarily leaving the pedestrian realm for the vehicular,
and being critically unaware of the transition. Purely riding
on the sidewalk is quite safe indeed.
> If you're talking about mountain biking, or riding on isolated MUPs, I
> agree the fatalities per mile or fatalities per hour will be lower than
> street riding. My guess is the number of "injuries," however they
> might be defined (bruises? scratches? trips to ER?) are higher for
> mountain biking, though.
Probably.
> One of our problems is the lack of a simple definition of "safer." If
> something had, say, 10 times the likelihood of a trip to the ER, but
> one tenth the likelihood of a trip to the morgue compared to a
> different activity, is it "safer" or "more dangerous"? What if the
> respective ratios were ten times and one hundredth?
Previously you have defined the danger
of cycling purely in terms of fatalities and you didn't
seem to have a problem with it, even as
several of us insisted that your definition was
inadequate. Now you see the light?
> IMO, when comparing chances of fatality in various types of bicycling,
> you're comparing infinitesmals. The chance of fatality is too low for
> a rational person to worry about, so there's no sense crunching those
> numbers any further.
Yes, I basically agree.
> And I think that with any reasonable amount of
> caution and common sense, the risk of truly serious injury is similarly
> low. (But you knew that!)
That's a big leap you made there. The rate of
'truly serious injury' is many many times the
fatality rate; although you may like to call it
low, it is not 'similarly low.' Whether it is really
still low or not is up for debate. Care to provide
a definition for 'low risk?'
> The item that interests me is whether we should be promoting
> flamboyantly risky behavior. At the very least, I think it's crazy to
> do that while obsessing about kids falling off bikes in their driveway!
I think the 'flamboyantly risky behavior' described here
is defined as such through the eyes of people who are
in fact ignorant of the actual danger involved,
kind of like traffic cycling to the general population.
We need to stop the senseless carnage of
ice dancing right now! I don't want to see one
more ice dancer tossed onto her hinder.
Robert
frkr...@gmail.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > One of our problems is the lack of a simple definition of "safer." If
> > something had, say, 10 times the likelihood of a trip to the ER, but
> > one tenth the likelihood of a trip to the morgue compared to a
> > different activity, is it "safer" or "more dangerous"? What if the
> > respective ratios were ten times and one hundredth?
>
> Previously you have defined the danger
> of cycling purely in terms of fatalities and you didn't
> seem to have a problem with it, even as
> several of us insisted that your definition was
> inadequate. Now you see the light?
I think I've explained this many times, but I'll try again.
Nothing is perfectly safe. The best that can be said of any activity
is that it's adequately safe.
The only rational way to judge adequate safety is by comparison with
other activities. If some unfamiliar activity is as safe as a commonly
accepted "safe" activity, then the unfamiliar activity should be deemed
safe.
The best way to make the comparison is by reference to data, not by the
public's perception of the unfamiliar activity. Per hour data is best
for most purposes, although other denominators can be used.
Data on fatality counts is very good. Record-keepers take fatalities
seriously.
Data on even "serious injuries" is very bad. There is no consistency
in what's termed a "serious injury." Counting trips to ER isn't very
good, because whether an injury is treated in ER depends only to a
small extent on the injury itself. It's influenced greatly by
insurance coverage, the injured party's (or his parents') fear, the
time of week or time of day, etc.
Data on "minor injuries" is all but nonexistent, with good reason:
Nobody cares about minor injuries. (Thank God for _some_ sanity among
the "SAFETY!!!!" community.)
Even if one were to get perfect data on serious and minor injuries,
there would be the philosophical problem of equating injures to
fatalities. How many broken collar bones does it take to "equal" one
death? How many skinned knees?
Thus the most robust metric for an activity's danger is the number of
fatalities per hour exposure. (Yes, it's difficult to get hours of
exposure data for many activities - but professionals in risk
management routinely do it.)
Finally: By that metric, cycling is adequately safe. And it does us
no good to pretend it's dangerous.
- Frank
Bob
She wouldn't be the first wife to call me a bad influence. <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
max
"Bob" <hun...@aol.com> wrote:
Here's a secret for shovelling heavy sneauxfalls: turn around and shovel the
snow to your rear, holding the shovel like a canoe paddle. This plays to
your biomechanical strengths much better than the traditional widowmaker
technique.
Don't laff, it works. try it.
sports that inherently injure: unicycling.
.max
r15...@aol.com
> I think I've explained this many times, but I'll try again.
Your explanation relies on tortured logic, so I
guess you'll have to keep trying.
> Nothing is perfectly safe. The best that can be said of any activity
> is that it's adequately safe.
'Adequately safe' is ultimately a subjective
value based on individual preferences, abilities,
etc. It's useless to cover an entire activity with
a blanket label like 'adequately safe.'
The best that we can do is provide facts,
in full disclosure, and let people decide for
themselves as individuals whether or not
they feel something is 'adequately safe.'
This is an important point regarding cycling,
as the ultimate numbers that are given --per hour this
and that--are averages based on the vast array
of total cyclists, and there are huge differences
in accident rate between the reckless riders and
the safest riders. So the single number is in
fact meaningless, even if it is perfectly accurate.
What we should look at is the curve
in its entirety; individual cyclists can then
opine on where they might fall along it, and,
more importantly, ponder the fact that their fate
is in their own hands, and not pre-determined
by some Number in the Sky (see below).
> The only rational way to judge adequate safety is by comparison with
> other activities. If some unfamiliar activity is as safe as a commonly
> accepted "safe" activity, then the unfamiliar activity should be deemed
> safe.
Moments ago in another post you were telling
us not to decide based on how people
feel, but here you flip-flop and say that what people
feel is the ultimate determiner of what is safe. Then
in the very next sentence, below, you flip-flop back.
I think you are making this up as you go along.
> The best way to make the comparison is by reference to data, not by the
public's perception of the unfamiliar activity. Per hour data is best
> for most purposes, although other denominators can be used.
> Data on fatality counts is very good. Record-keepers take fatalities
> seriously.
Deaths are recorded, but not every cyclist death
is recorded as a cyclist death. This was the case recently
in Toronto, where a rider died after a long coma
and the original cause of his injury was forgotten.
> Data on even "serious injuries" is very bad. There is no consistency
> in what's termed a "serious injury." Counting trips to ER isn't very
> good, because whether an injury is treated in ER depends only to a
> small extent on the injury itself. It's influenced greatly by
> insurance coverage, the injured party's (or his parents') fear, the
> time of week or time of day, etc.
Nonsense. The NEISS (National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System) is generally considered to provide a
reasonably accurate number for total ER visits
AND the number of hospital admissions that result
from them. Surely, a hospital admission involves
a serious injury, or observation for a possible
serious injury. Typical bike injuries like collarbone
fractures almost never result in admission, so you
can rest assured that a load of quite significant
injuries are left out of the count. The rate
of hospital admission due to bike wreck is about 30
times the fatality rate according to NEISS/WISQARS.
> Even if one were to get perfect data on serious and minor injuries,
> there would be the philosophical problem of equating injures to
> fatalities. How many broken collar bones does it take to "equal" one
> death? How many skinned knees?
I don't understand or share your need to boil all
of this down to a single number which would
somehow magically describe in all its numerical
glory the Danger of Cycling. The reality of it
is not so complex that is evades description
by simple words: cycling is not a deadly
activity, on the other hand it has a noticeably
higher injury rate than other forms of
transportation. This is because cyclists
fall off their bikes as well collide with
other vehicles, or both at the same time.
Cyclists are relatively vulnerable to injury,
minor to serious, but they are in better
shape and having more fun than
everybody else. I don't see what's
so hard to accept about that. I think
this is well understood by everyone who rides
bikes for a while, and I don't think it is volatile
information that should be hidden from the
general population just to keep our faulty
helmet-skeptic arguments intact.
> Thus the most robust metric for an activity's danger is the number of
> fatalities per hour exposure.
Nonsense. There is no reason to exclude
injuries from your analysis--unless you are
more interested in spreading propaganda than
representing reality.
>
> Finally: By that metric, cycling is adequately safe. And it does us
> no good to pretend it's dangerous.
Whether cycling is 'adequately safe' or not, depends
on the cyclist's own awareness and ability, and
that's it.
You seem to think that the Safety of Cycling
is a separate entity like the music of the spheres
that exists entirely apart from the cyclists themselves
and can be described by a number. The implication
is that beginning cyclists will somehow be protected
by the 'adequate safety' of their activity. For this
reason, I believe your ideas are dangerous.
Robert
Mike Kruger
>
> This is an important point regarding cycling,
> as the ultimate numbers that are given --per hour this
> and that--are averages based on the vast array
> of total cyclists, and there are huge differences
> in accident rate between the reckless riders and
> the safest riders. So the single number is in
> fact meaningless, even if it is perfectly accurate.
> What we should look at is the curve
> in its entirety; individual cyclists can then
> opine on where they might fall along it, and,
> more importantly, ponder the fact that their fate
> is in their own hands, and not pre-determined
> by some Number in the Sky (see below).
There's considerable truth to that. That's why the more you cycle, the
safer the cyclist you are, in general. Your road positioning is generally
better, your ability to choose routes is better, you learn than riding the
wrong way on the sidewalk is nowhere near as safe as it seems, etc.
I think that's the real virtue of a book like John Forester's "Effective
Cycling". If you read the chapters on riding technique, you can become a lot
safer cyclist a lot faster.
Still, though, there are a couple of points I'd quibble with. First, our
fate is only partly in our hands, whether bicycling or doing any other
activity.
Second, the numbers on the safety of cycling, or the effectiveness of
helmets, and a variety of other numbers related to cycling are foggy enough
at the mean. Looking at the entire distribution would be difficult, and your
point about looking at where you are in the distribution is more of a
rhetorical point than a practical alternative.
Even comparing our overall cycling safety by looking at your long-term
injury rate versus my long-term injury rate isn't really valid because (1)
we are comparing rare events and may not have a big enough sample size
unless we pool a long time, and (2) if we pool a long time, we aren't really
comparing what I am like now, biking where I do not, to what you are like
now, biking where you do now.
And so we are left discussing averages of incompetent-to-excellent
automobile drivers with averages of incompetent-to-excellent cyclists.
frkr...@gmail.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I think I've explained this many times, but I'll try again.
>
> Your explanation relies on tortured logic, so I
> guess you'll have to keep trying.
IME, logic which seems tortured to one individual seems crystal clear
to others. Ever try to explain relativity to a math phobe?
Nonetheless, I'm willing to be patient.
> > Nothing is perfectly safe. The best that can be said of any activity
> > is that it's adequately safe.
>
> 'Adequately safe' is ultimately a subjective
> value based on individual preferences, abilities,
> etc. It's useless to cover an entire activity with
> a blanket label like 'adequately safe.'
>
> The best that we can do is provide facts,
> in full disclosure, and let people decide for
> themselves as individuals whether or not
> they feel something is 'adequately safe.'
Which is what I spend a lot of time doing. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
>
> This is an important point regarding cycling,
> as the ultimate numbers that are given --per hour this
> and that--are averages based on the vast array
> of total cyclists, and there are huge differences
> in accident rate between the reckless riders and
> the safest riders. So the single number is in
> fact meaningless, even if it is perfectly accurate.
This objection is specious. It applies to absolutely every activity,
every element of diet, every personal habit to which any person could
possibly subject themselves.
If you have specific, and preferably quantifiable reasons one class of
persons differs from the average, state it and let's try to discuss it.
But it does no good to say "That data includes lots of people who are
younger than 18, riding at 3:30 PM, in small towns, on Huffies that are
painted black, so it doesn't apply to me... because my Huffy is red!"
> What we should look at is the curve
> in its entirety;
I'm perfectly willing to do that if you produce the curve in its
entirety. So far you haven't. When I've given one point on the curve
(an average from a group of cycling enthusiasts) you've given an
off-the-cuff estimate of one other data point.
So show us the data.
> > The only rational way to judge adequate safety is by comparison with
> > other activities. If some unfamiliar activity is as safe as a commonly
> > accepted "safe" activity, then the unfamiliar activity should be deemed
> > safe.
>
> Moments ago in another post you were telling
> us not to decide based on how people
> feel, but here you flip-flop and say that what people
> feel is the ultimate determiner of what is safe. Then
> in the very next sentence, below, you flip-flop back.
> I think you are making this up as you go along.
I think you are not understanding.
Data can be, and has been, acquired on the relative safety of many
activities. This data can be used to evaluate the risk of an activity.
But interpreting the data must be done according to an individual's
tolerance for risk. One person might think 0.1 fatality per million
hours is too much. Another person might be OK with 0.9 fatalities per
million hours. But whatever one's risk tolerance, it should be
reasonably consistent.
If a person is terrified to cross a downtown street, then it's at least
consistent for them to _also_ be afraid of other activities that are
really more dangerous. However, if they're afraid of a significantly
safer activity while _not_ afraid of a significantly more dangerous
one, their attitudes probably need adjustment.
America seems filled with people who don't worry about crossing
downtown streets, don't worry about driving their cars, don't worry
about swimming, but worry about riding a bike. That's inconsistent.
> > Data on fatality counts is very good. Record-keepers take fatalities
> > seriously.
>
> Deaths are recorded, but not every cyclist death
> is recorded as a cyclist death. This was the case recently
> in Toronto, where a rider died after a long coma
> and the original cause of his injury was forgotten.
I didn't say "perfect." I said "very good." Perfection is
unattainable, but if we fixate on that, we're into the realm of
"Nothing is knowable; All is mystery."
>
> > Data on even "serious injuries" is very bad. There is no consistency
> > in what's termed a "serious injury." Counting trips to ER isn't very
> > good, because whether an injury is treated in ER depends only to a
> > small extent on the injury itself. It's influenced greatly by
> > insurance coverage, the injured party's (or his parents') fear, the
> > time of week or time of day, etc.
>
> Nonsense. The NEISS (National Electronic Injury
> Surveillance System) is generally considered to provide a
> reasonably accurate number for total ER visits
> AND the number of hospital admissions that result
> from them. Surely, a hospital admission involves
> a serious injury, or observation for a possible
> serious injury.
I'll agree with that last sentence, but most of the data I've seen is
counts of ER visits, not counts of admissions. And I'll stand by my
statement that ER visits are not reliable indicators of danger.
> I don't understand or share your need to boil all
> of this down to a single number which would
> somehow magically describe in all its numerical
> glory the Danger of Cycling.
My need stems from this: There are lots of people who wring their
hands and say "Cycling's too dangerous..." for kids going to school,
or for people riding without special hats, or for people riding
anywhere near traffic, or whatever. Because of these attitudes and the
abuses they generate, I spent a lot of time trying to find out how
dangerous cycling actually is.
And the data I've found shows it's NOT particularly dangerous. That
is, based on numerical data, it's less dangerous than many activities
that do not generate the handwringing and horror stories.
So briefly, I post the numbers I've found to show cycling _is_
relatively safe. Now, what motivates you to argue so energetically that
cycling _isn't_ safe??
> The reality of it
> is not so complex that is evades description
> by simple words: cycling is not a deadly
> activity, on the other hand it has a noticeably
> higher injury rate than other forms of
> transportation.
"Rate" meaning what? Per hour? No, because that's false. And let's
not forget that cycling is NOT only "transportation." It's also
recreation. I've gone for a ride while my family has gone for a swim.
Shall we compare the per-mile fatality rates of swimming and cycling?
Swimming would look dismal, because it's already worse than cycling per
hour!
If you want to compare cycle commuting with walking to work, driving,
taking the bus, & taking the train, then per-mile fatality data would
probably put cycling worse than most of those - except, of course,
walking to work. Shall we start warning people not to walk?
(And even then, we shouldn't lose track of the fact that bike commuters
have a lower _overall_ risk of death than motorist commuters.)
> This is because cyclists
> fall off their bikes as well collide with
> other vehicles, or both at the same time.
> Cyclists are relatively vulnerable to injury,
> minor to serious, but they are in better
> shape and having more fun than
> everybody else. I don't see what's
> so hard to accept about that. I think
> this is well understood by everyone who rides
> bikes for a while...
But your continuous harping on the fact that "you might fall off your
bike, or get hit by a car, you're vulnerable to injury!" is the kind of
thing that marginalizes cycling. It discourages people from cycling.
It leads to cops and courts ignoring violations against cyclists,
saying "He knew the risks."
People who promote swimming for exercise don't go around saying "You
might drown!" (despite the fact that drownings handily outnumber bike
deaths.) Why is it that cyclists are so prone to saying "But you might
crash! You might get hit by a car!"?
> > Finally: ... Cycling is adequately safe. And it does us
> > no good to pretend it's dangerous.
>
> Whether cycling is 'adequately safe' or not, depends
> on the cyclist's own awareness and ability, and
> that's it.
Ditto driving, swimming, walking, jogging, cooking, gardening,
weighlifting, fishing, boating, etc. Why pretend our favorite activity
is unique?
>
> You seem to think that the Safety of Cycling
> is a separate entity like the music of the spheres
> that exists entirely apart from the cyclists themselves
> and can be described by a number. The implication
> is that beginning cyclists will somehow be protected
> by the 'adequate safety' of their activity. For this
> reason, I believe your ideas are dangerous.
That pretty much sums up our disagreement. You say it's dangerous to
NOT put fear into others. I think that's anti-cycling.
- Frank Krygowski
r15...@aol.com
> IME, logic which seems tortured to one individual seems crystal clear
> to others. Ever try to explain relativity to a math phobe?
> Nonetheless, I'm willing to be patient.
Jeez. Ramping up the condescending tone
is not going to cover up the fact that your logic
is tortured.
> Which is what I spend a lot of time doing. See
> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
Again, I find that 'quiz' to be misleading and packed
with half-truths. You seem to be a propagandist who is
more interested in hiding the truth than illuminating
it. I would say 'go read it and decide for yourselves'
but there is not adequate disclosure of information
in the 'quiz' and people who don't have a good working
knowledge of bicycle accident statistrickery should
go in with the understanding that they are about to get
sold a bill of goods. Rather than give information and
let folks decide for themselves, you aim to
manipulate based on the presumed ignorance
of your audience--and therefore to keep that audience
un- and mis-informed.
> > This is an important point regarding cycling,
> > as the ultimate numbers that are given --per hour this
> > and that--are averages based on the vast array
> > of total cyclists, and there are huge differences
> > in accident rate between the reckless riders and
> > the safest riders. So the single number is in
> > fact meaningless, even if it is perfectly accurate.
>
> This objection is specious. It applies to absolutely every activity,
> every element of diet, every personal habit to which any person could
> possibly subject themselves.
Dear Einstein: So What. Your point is specious, not mine.
> If you have specific, and preferably quantifiable reasons one class of
> persons differs from the average, state it and let's try to discuss it.
I have, repeatedly. Don't worry, I'm patient.
Again: The primary reason
that beginning cyclists have higher rates of
injury (ime) is lack of experience of, and therefore lack
of awareness of, various hazards. Highly experienced
riders are just the mirror image: they have seen more
and experienced more than the average rider so their
awareness is therefore greater and their accident rates
are lower than average. This isn't exactly the theory
of Relativity, is it?
> But it does no good to say "That data includes lots of people who are
> younger than 18, riding at 3:30 PM, in small towns, on Huffies that are
> painted black, so it doesn't apply to me... because my Huffy is red!"
Huh? Is that the Theory of Relati-Huffy?
> > What we should look at is the curve
> > in its entirety;
>
> I'm perfectly willing to do that if you produce the curve in its
> entirety. So far you haven't. When I've given one point on the curve
> (an average from a group of cycling enthusiasts) you've given an
> off-the-cuff estimate of one other data point.
Sure, I've shown you the curve, you just didn't
notice I guess. It looks something like a ski jump
without the jump, that is, it's an immediate steep
drop followed by a very long run-out, asymptotic
to zero but taking it's sweet time getting there.
(y-axis is accident rate and x-axis is units of
experience, say, hundreds of hours in the saddle.)
I
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
I *
--------------------------------------------------------------
0 50 100
Something like that anyway.
> So show us the data.
Every survey or study that I've ever seen which
gives an estimate for accident rate for a given
population of riders _generally_ falls pretty well
along such a curve. With the available data,
generally is the best we can do. That's down
to many reasons--including but not limited to
the critical sketchiness of the surveys, the problems
with defining 'injury' and 'accident,' the problems
with comparing the results of fundamentally different
surveys along the same curve--but primarily because
experience can not be precisely quantified in years,
miles, or even hours. Anyway, see:
Chlapecka, Schupack, Planek, Klecker, and
Driessen (1975); Cross (1980); Cross and
Fisher (1977); Kaplan (1976); Schupack and
Driessen (1976); Watkin's survey of CTC
members (1984). More recent surveys (of
more experienced cyclists) include
Moritz' survey of LAB members (1996), and
Ken Kifer's survey from 2001. In addition, my
own observations of riders with more experience
than those in the Kifer and Moritz surveys
(although no formal surveys of these riders
have been conducted of which I'm aware)
confirms the shape and continuation of the curve,
on down the line. Different times, different riders,
vastly different accident rates, same curve.
> America seems filled with people who don't worry about crossing
> downtown streets, don't worry about driving their cars, don't worry
> about swimming, but worry about riding a bike. That's inconsistent.
America is
a nation of very experienced drivers and
inexperienced cyclists. Any new cyclist
would in fact come into it with a personal
'Danger Index Quotient' that would be
much higher than the average rider's, and
perhaps a more accurate vision of
their own in-ability to avoid injury than you would
like to admit.
RE: Swimming. I have never seen any statistics
which separate swimming deaths from the
whole of drowning deaths. (If your toddler
drowns in the backyard pool or the tub, or
if your whitewater rafting goes very bad,
these are not 'swimming' deaths.) Please
post a reference for swimming-specific
deaths. After all, 'drowning is more dangerous
than cycling per hour' sounds pretty silly,
doesn't it? How bout drowning in traffic--
how does that compare?
> > Nonsense. The NEISS (National Electronic Injury
> > Surveillance System) is generally considered to provide a
> > reasonably accurate number for total ER visits
> > AND the number of hospital admissions that result
> > from them. Surely, a hospital admission involves
> > a serious injury, or observation for a possible
> > serious injury.
>
> I'll agree with that last sentence, but most of the data I've seen is
> counts of ER visits, not counts of admissions. And I'll stand by my
> statement that ER visits are not reliable indicators of danger.
I'm talking about hospital admissions. The NEISS
database gives hospital admissions as easily
as it gives ER visits. It shows that cyclists are
hospitalized at about 30 times the rate they are
killed. IOW, using the fatality rate alone is not
even remotely adequate for determining the
overall danger of cycling. The fatality rate and
the rate of serious injury are not 'similarly low'
as you claim. Not even close.
> > I don't understand or share your need to boil all
> > of this down to a single number which would
> > somehow magically describe in all its numerical
> > glory the Danger of Cycling.
>
> My need stems from this: There are lots of people who wring their
> hands and say "Cycling's too dangerous..." for kids going to school,
> or for people riding without special hats, or for people riding
> anywhere near traffic, or whatever. Because of these attitudes and the
> abuses they generate, I spent a lot of time trying to find out how
> dangerous cycling actually is.
Well, spend 5 minutes more and check out the WISQARS
numbers on cyclist hospitalizations.
> And the data I've found shows it's NOT particularly dangerous. That
> is, based on numerical data, it's less dangerous than many activities
> that do not generate the handwringing and horror stories.
That's not what the data says, unfortunately. Unless the
other activities you're talking about are motorcycling and
skydiving? Kickboxing? Combat?
You are very selective when you say 'based
on numerical data.' Based on some estimations
of fatality rate, is what you really mean.
> So briefly, I post the numbers I've found to show cycling _is_
> relatively safe. Now, what motivates you to argue so energetically that
> cycling _isn't_ safe??
I'm just reacting to your advertising campaign.
Same thing that motivates me to yell at the tv
when one of those oil-companies-are-saving-the-
earth ads comes on. Intolerance for BS I guess.
> > The reality of it
> > is not so complex that is evades description
> > by simple words: cycling is not a deadly
> > activity, on the other hand it has a noticeably
> > higher injury rate than other forms of
> > transportation.
>
> "Rate" meaning what? Per hour? No, because that's false.
Oh, really.
The per-mile injury comparisons between
walking, driving, and cycling have cycling
so far in the lead that it seems quite likely
that the per-hour numbers also look bad,
although I'd guess not as bad.
> And let's
> not forget that cycling is NOT only "transportation." It's also
> recreation.
Yes, much if not most of American cycling is
non-transportational, and occurs on routes
deliberately chosen for their cycling-friendliness.
What are the statistical implications? Thimk, Frank,
thimk!
> I've gone for a ride while my family has gone for a swim.
> Shall we compare the per-mile fatality rates of swimming and cycling?
> Swimming would look dismal, because it's already worse than cycling per
> hour!
Yes, per hour, drowning is quite deadly, isn't it?
Per-mile, too, it turns out. I don't think you have
any actual numbers for swimming-related deaths,
but I'd like to see them if you do.
> But your continuous harping on the fact that "you might fall off your
> bike, or get hit by a car, you're vulnerable to injury!" is the kind of
> thing that marginalizes cycling.
First of all, I am not harping. I am simply
stating the reality of the situation. Second,
I don't agree that it 'marginalizes cycling.'
> It discourages people from cycling.
Oh, the hell it does. It helps the riders
who are already out there. Nobody else
is reading this.
The facts are empowering. The facts indicate
that the safety of cycling is determined
by the riders themselves, and not by
mysterious dark forces beyond our control--
the Number in the Sky scenario you put
forth.
You know what discourages people from
cycling? Getting run over by a *$#@**$#
car.
If you really want to encourage cycling, and
that is your primary motivation, then you should
promote separate facilities for cyclists. Because
that is what makes beginners feel the most
comfortable. If what you really want is to make
sure beginners feel comfortable, go for it.
> It leads to cops and courts ignoring violations against cyclists,
> saying "He knew the risks."
Come on.
> People who promote swimming for exercise don't go around saying "You
> might drown!"
The hell they don't. People who promote
swimming in the ocean sure do 'harp' on
safety issues. Are they anti-swimming?
Should the lifeguard not explain about the
viscious riptide at the jetty for fear of
discouraging the swimmer from swimming
through the riptide?? You're freakin me
out, man.
> (despite the fact that drownings handily outnumber bike
> deaths.) Why is it that cyclists are so prone to saying "But you might
> crash! You might get hit by a car!"?
I'm not sure cyclists really are prone to saying
that. But maybe if you are hearing that, what
you are hearing as harping or handwringing
is really just a friendly warning from a fellow
cyclist who has been there, done that.
Personally, when somebody with much more
experience than myself gives me some advice,
I am thankful for it and I take it seriously.
I don't attack the messenger because I
don't like the message.
> >
> > You seem to think that the Safety of Cycling
> > is a separate entity like the music of the spheres
> > that exists entirely apart from the cyclists themselves
> > and can be described by a number. The implication
> > is that beginning cyclists will somehow be protected
> > by the 'adequate safety' of their activity. For this
> > reason, I believe your ideas are dangerous.
>
> That pretty much sums up our disagreement. You say it's dangerous to
> NOT put fear into others. I think that's anti-cycling.
What you call 'putting fear into others' is simply
a stating of the facts. According to you
stating the facts about cycling injuries is
anti-cycling. It's a bizarre argument.
Passing on facts and knowledge about cycling
injuries and how to avoid them is empowering.
It is pro-cyclist.
What I think is dangerous is sending beginners
out into traffic with the impression that, hey kids,
your safety lies with forces outside your control,
but hey don't worry kids, because Behold! the
Number in the Sky says 'adequately safe.' Yeah,
that's dangerous. That's anti-cycling. That's
ridiculous.
Robert
frkr...@gmail.com
r15...@aol.com wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > See
> > http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
>
> Again, I find that 'quiz' to be misleading and packed
> with half-truths.
Ah well. When I looked them up, the sources claimed they were
completely true. Maybe you should explain more about the "half" part.
> You seem to be a propagandist who is
> more interested in hiding the truth than illuminating
> it.
I'm a person who was skeptical of the dire warnings thrown about
regarding cycling and its dangers... warnings claiming large numbers of
fatalities for cycling, large numbers of head injuries, large numbers
of ER visits. These are easy to find - as if the "Safety!!!" industry
doesn't want people to cycle. All I tried to do was put their numbers
in context by using comparisons.
If my data is wrong, provide corrections.
>
> > > This is an important point regarding cycling,
> > > as the ultimate numbers that are given --per hour this
> > > and that--are averages based on the vast array
> > > of total cyclists, and there are huge differences
> > > in accident rate between the reckless riders and
> > > the safest riders. So the single number is in
> > > fact meaningless, even if it is perfectly accurate.
> >
> > This objection is specious. It applies to absolutely every activity,
> > every element of diet, every personal habit to which any person could
> > possibly subject themselves.
>
> Dear Einstein: So What.
I'll let that one stand, thanks.
> Again: The primary reason
> that beginning cyclists have higher rates of
> injury (ime) is lack of experience of, and therefore lack
> of awareness of, various hazards. ... This isn't exactly the theory
> of Relativity, is it?
No, but once again, it's NOT special to cycling. Beginning motorists
have far more accidents and fatalities (per mile or per hour) than
motorists with, say, 20 years experience. Beginning motorcyclists are
responsible for a tremendous majority of motorcycle fatalities. But
you seem to want to compare beginning bicyclists with data including
mature, experienced motorists and motorcyclists. Don't say "cycling is
very dangerous because the least experienced cyclists are worse off
than the average motorist."
> > I'm perfectly willing to do that if you produce the curve in its
> > entirety. So far you haven't. When I've given one point on the curve
> > (an average from a group of cycling enthusiasts) you've given an
> > off-the-cuff estimate of one other data point.
>
> Sure, I've shown you the curve, you just didn't
> notice I guess. It looks something like a ski jump
> without the jump, that is, it's an immediate steep
> drop followed by a very long run-out, asymptotic
> to zero but taking it's sweet time getting there.
The curve you artistically drew is exactly the same shape as the one
for motoring or motorcycling - except that motoring's curve rises
upward at the far right. It applies to many, many activities. Don't
pretend it proves cycling is unusually dangerous
>
> > So show us the data.
>
> Every survey or study that I've ever seen which
> gives an estimate for accident rate for a given
> population of riders _generally_ falls pretty well
> along such a curve. With the available data,
> generally is the best we can do.
I'll note you're giving us NO data, only artwork and handwaving.
> Anyway, see:
>
> Chlapecka, Schupack, Planek, Klecker, and
> Driessen (1975); Cross (1980); Cross and
> Fisher (1977); Kaplan (1976); Schupack and
> Driessen (1976); Watkin's survey of CTC
> members (1984). More recent surveys (of
> more experienced cyclists) include
> Moritz' survey of LAB members (1996), and
> Ken Kifer's survey from 2001.
I've seen many (but not all) of those. But your listing of authors and
dates looks like a smokescreen. Do you have numbers from specific
papers to make your "cycling is dangerous" case? Why not give them?
(And, BTW, do you have titles for those papers, or are you trying to
make finding them as difficult as possible, so others can't call you
out?)
> > America seems filled with people who don't worry about crossing
> > downtown streets, don't worry about driving their cars, don't worry
> > about swimming, but worry about riding a bike. That's inconsistent.
>
> America is
> a nation of very experienced drivers and
> inexperienced cyclists.
<sigh> Every driver starts off being inexperienced. So does every
participant in every activity. If the US has a problem with bicycling,
it's that people are afraid to become experienced - partly because of
attitudes like yours!
> I'm talking about hospital admissions. The NEISS
> database gives hospital admissions as easily
> as it gives ER visits. It shows that cyclists are
> hospitalized at about 30 times the rate they are
> killed.
What significance is that supposed to have? First, that's generally
true of everything from motoring to basketball to gardening. In fact,
I'd suppose that ratio is lowest for only things like skydiving and
hang gliding and flying light aircraft - things that are _truly_
dangerous!
> IOW, using the fatality rate alone is not
> even remotely adequate for determining the
> overall danger of cycling. The fatality rate and
> the rate of serious injury are not 'similarly low'
> as you claim. Not even close.
They are low enough that people do NOT need to worry as much as they
do.
> > Now, what motivates you to argue so energetically that
> > cycling _isn't_ safe??
>
> I'm just reacting to your advertising campaign.
> Same thing that motivates me to yell at the tv
> when one of those oil-companies-are-saving-the-
> earth ads comes on. Intolerance for BS I guess.
Except you've consistently failed to show it's BS. And while yelling
at the TV is a bit immature, at least you're complaining about things
that do harm. Complaining about bicycling's safety is completely
counterproductive. You need a new hobby.
>
> > > The reality of it
> > > is not so complex that is evades description
> > > by simple words: cycling is not a deadly
> > > activity, on the other hand it has a noticeably
> > > higher injury rate than other forms of
> > > transportation.
> >
> > "Rate" meaning what? Per hour? No, because that's false.
>
> Oh, really.
>
> The per-mile injury comparisons between
> walking, driving, and cycling have cycling
> so far in the lead that it seems quite likely
> that the per-hour numbers also look bad,
> although I'd guess not as bad.
Robinson, D.L., "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws", Accident
Analysis & Prevention v. 28 no 4 has pedestrians at 0.80 fatalities per
million hours, motorists at 0.46, cyclists at 0.41, and motorcyclists
at 7.66.
Data from several European countries has cycling sometimes better,
sometimes worse than motoring. At least one US source has cycling
better than motoring, per hour, by roughly a factor of two (and better
than swimming by a factor of four).
Of course, in the past, you've rejected those data points because they
didn't tell you exactly how they were determined. But they are
professionally gathered data, nonetheless.
>
> > And let's
> > not forget that cycling is NOT only "transportation." It's also
> > recreation. I've gone for a ride while my family has gone for a swim.
> > Shall we compare the per-mile fatality rates of swimming and cycling?
>
> > Swimming would look dismal, because it's already worse than cycling per
> > hour!
>
> Yes, per hour, drowning is quite deadly, isn't it?
Sorry, Robert. The data talks about SWIMMING.
> You know what discourages people from
> cycling? Getting run over by a *$#@**$#
> car.
No, because that happens only about 700 times in the entire USA, which
makes it very rare. It's the _fear_ of that which discourages people
from cycling - and as usual, you're doing your level best to increase
that fear.
700 fatalities is a tiny number. According to a Scripps-Howard wire
article from about five days ago, there are that many hypothermia
deaths in the US each year! In fact, there are almost as many deaths
from poison gases each year.
Have you considered scaring people away from skiing, or from gas
stoves, instead of cycling?
> > People who promote swimming for exercise don't go around saying "You
> > might drown!"
>
> The hell they don't. People who promote
> swimming in the ocean sure do 'harp' on
> safety issues.
Here's the difference: People promoting swimming say things like
"learn to swim." They don't say "You might drown!!!" They don't quote
the number of drownings and near-drownings in the US each year. And
when you go to the beach, or sign your kid up for swimming lessons,
they don't make you sign your life away on a form saying "Swimming is a
hazardous activity, you may drown, you may suffer brain damage from
anoxia..."
Compare with this statement ADVERTISING an organized ride, which I got
in the mail:
"I understand that bicycling can be a hazardous activity that has many
dangers and risks, including injury, pemanent paralysis or death
resulting from accident of physical exertion. I understand that
bicycling involves a risk of injury, that injuries are a common and
ordinary occurrence of the sport, and while particular rules, equipment
and personal discipline may reduce this risk, the risk of serious
injury does exist."
That for an ordinary bike ride, not an extreme downhill race. I
challenge you to find me ONE example of a similar waiver statement for
an ordinary swimming event - that is, not something like a two-mile
ocean race.
> What I think is dangerous is sending beginners
> out into traffic with the impression that, hey kids,
> your safety lies with forces outside your control,
> but hey don't worry kids, because Behold! the
> Number in the Sky says 'adequately safe.'
And I see nobody doing that. It's in your imagination.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Warner
> Netball (sort of like fixed position basketball - only played in ex Brit
> Cwth countries I think) is another orthopaedic surgeons paradise.
Possibly the only sport in existence in which you have to /stop/ when
you get the ball :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
r15...@aol.com
> I'm a person who was skeptical of the dire warnings thrown about
> regarding cycling and its dangers... warnings claiming large numbers of
> fatalities for cycling, large numbers of head injuries, large numbers
> of ER visits. These are easy to find - as if the "Safety!!!" industry
> doesn't want people to cycle. All I tried to do was put their numbers
> in context by using comparisons.
You have no interest in telling the entire story,
however. Anybody who does, according to you, is
derided as 'anti-cycling.' So in the end you are just another
propagandist, no better than this 'Safety industry' you
keep harping about.
Personally, I don't hear much overwrought safety
talk directed at adults. What 'handwringing' there
seems to be is directed at kids and their parents.
> If my data is wrong, provide corrections.
Your 'data' is misleading, and of course you know it.
For instance, your comparison of total cycling ER
visits to basketball ER visits--leaving aside the
fact that the two can really only be compared on a
per-hour basis--conveniently leaves out
the fact that the range of potential injury for cyclists
is completely different than that for basketball. IOW,
some of the cyclist ER visits will result in hospitalization
for serious or critical injuries, while almost all of the
basketball-related visits are treat-and-release.
So if you're really interested in spreading the truth
as you say, you'd better put this very critical information
in your quiz, right? Just say 'Cycling hospitalizations:
25-30,000 per year. Basketall hospitalizations: 0.'
That will give people a better idea of what they're
dealing with here. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke
up their asses.
> > Again: The primary reason
> > that beginning cyclists have higher rates of
> > injury (ime) is lack of experience of, and therefore lack
> > of awareness of, various hazards. ... This isn't exactly the theory
> > of Relativity, is it?
>
> No, but once again, it's NOT special to cycling.
This is what's known as a red herring. Nowhere did I
suggest that cycling was somehow a special activity
in this regard, nor does it really matter. Seems to me
it is you who is pretending cycling is some kind of
special activity, where those participating in it are
magically protected by the 'adequate safety' of the
activity, as defined by you, a number based, at best,
on the average of all cyclists combined. How the
beginners are supposed to be kept safe by the
relatively safe riding of the old veterans goes
unexplained by you.
> Beginning motorists
> have far more accidents and fatalities (per mile or per hour) than
> motorists with, say, 20 years experience. Beginning motorcyclists are
> responsible for a tremendous majority of motorcycle fatalities. But
> you seem to want to compare beginning bicyclists with data including
> mature, experienced motorists and motorcyclists. Don't say "cycling is
> very dangerous because the least experienced cyclists are worse off
> than the average motorist."
First of all, I've never once said 'cycling is very dangerous.'
If you can't discuss what I have actually said without
putting words in my mouth to suit your argument, just
give up. Give up now. Second, you keep going back to
fatalities, while I have been trying to discuss cycling's
unusually high rate of injury. You seem to have a mental
block which prevents you from even acknowledging
injuries as a possible issue.
Third, I wouldn't say 'cycling is dangerous because the
least experienced cyclists are worse off than the average
motorist.' We have been comparing averages! Average
cyclists are worse off than the average motorist, in
terms of accidents resulting in injury or death. That doesn't
mean that cyclists are worse off than motorists overall,
but in terms of danger, yes.
> The curve you artistically drew is exactly the same shape as the one
> for motoring or motorcycling - except that motoring's curve rises
> upward at the far right. It applies to many, many activities. Don't
> pretend it proves cycling is unusually dangerous
You completely miss the point of the curve.
The curve shows that individual riders are
largely in control of their own fate on the roads.
It shows that accident rates go from bad to
good, not based on random chance, not based
on the dictates of the Number in the Sky, but
based only on one thing: the Experience of
the rider.
I don't understand why you think this curve is
bad news. It is good news. It is empowering.
I feel it is extremely important for beginning riders
to understand that their safety depends on
their own level of awareness. Unfortunately
few do understand that, and so the lesson is pounded
into them by events. Thus, the curve. Perhaps
we can flatten it a bit with a more effective
education of new riders. IOW, stop blowing
smoke up their asses.
> > > So show us the data.
> >
> > Every survey or study that I've ever seen which
> > gives an estimate for accident rate for a given
> > population of riders _generally_ falls pretty well
> > along such a curve. With the available data,
> > generally is the best we can do.
>
> I'll note you're giving us NO data, only artwork and handwaving.
>
> > Anyway, see:
> >
> > Chlapecka, Schupack, Planek, Klecker, and
> > Driessen (1975); Cross (1980); Cross and
> > Fisher (1977); Kaplan (1976); Schupack and
> > Driessen (1976); Watkin's survey of CTC
> > members (1984). More recent surveys (of
> > more experienced cyclists) include
> > Moritz' survey of LAB members (1996), and
> > Ken Kifer's survey from 2001.
>
> I've seen many (but not all) of those. But your listing of authors and
> dates looks like a smokescreen. Do you have numbers from specific
> papers to make your "cycling is dangerous" case? Why not give them?
>
> (And, BTW, do you have titles for those papers, or are you trying to
> make finding them as difficult as possible, so others can't call you
> out?)
Yeah, that's it. Ya caught me.
For anybody who is really interested in these, god rest
their souls, I recommend going to Forester, Bicycle Transportation,
pp. 41-61, where you can gaze at the numbers and upon
Forester's manipulation thereof. Then you can decide if you
want to go and dig up the actual studies. The Moritz and
the Kifer are available online at:
www.bicyclinglife.com/library/Moritz2.htm
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
> <sigh> Every driver starts off being inexperienced. So does every
> participant in every activity. If the US has a problem with bicycling,
> it's that people are afraid to become experienced - partly because of
> attitudes like yours!
What attitude is that? I think what you are calling
an attitude is a simple recognition of the truth. As this
truth is, apparently, unpalatable for you, you convince
yourself that anyone who could utter it must have
some 'anti-cycling' attitude, even if they are only
reciting known statistics. It's a lot of mental
gymnastics, but in this way your dreamworld stays
intact.
> > IOW, using the fatality rate alone is not
> > even remotely adequate for determining the
> > overall danger of cycling. The fatality rate and
> > the rate of serious injury are not 'similarly low'
> > as you claim. Not even close.
>
> They are low enough that people do NOT need to worry as much as they
> do.
'People'? What people? Cyclists?
Beginning riders, all riders? Drivers?
You are making two claims here: that there
are a bunch of 'people' out there worried about
cycling injuries, and two, their worry is unfounded.
I think you are wrong on both counts.
If you think these numbers for serious injuries
do not have a heavy impact in the population of
cyclists than you are massively delusional.
Ask around. Ask around in this forum.
If someone with much more experience than
yourself is 'worried' about something, you
would do well to learn from it rather than
belittle it.
> > I'm just reacting to your advertising campaign.
> > Same thing that motivates me to yell at the tv
> > when one of those oil-companies-are-saving-the-
> > earth ads comes on. Intolerance for BS I guess.
>
> Except you've consistently failed to show it's BS. And while yelling
> at the TV is a bit immature, at least you're complaining about things
> that do harm. Complaining about bicycling's safety is completely
> counterproductive.
Just about everything you write on this subject
is so infused with bullshit that it becomes difficult
to take it all in, much less respond.
I am not 'complaining about bicycling's safety.'
I am complaining about you.
> You need a new hobby.
You are the hobbyist here. Riding in
traffic is my job.
> > The per-mile injury comparisons between
> > walking, driving, and cycling have cycling
> > so far in the lead that it seems quite likely
> > that the per-hour numbers also look bad,
> > although I'd guess not as bad.
>
> Robinson, D.L., "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws", Accident
> Analysis & Prevention v. 28 no 4 has pedestrians at 0.80 fatalities per
> million hours, motorists at 0.46, cyclists at 0.41, and motorcyclists
> at 7.66.
>
> Data from several European countries has cycling sometimes better,
> sometimes worse than motoring. At least one US source has cycling
> better than motoring, per hour, by roughly a factor of two (and better
> than swimming by a factor of four).
>
> Of course, in the past, you've rejected those ...
<snip> Hold it, are you trying to talk about fatalities
again??!! Wow! How can you do that, just start referring
to fatalities all of the sudden when I was specifically
referring to injury rates? It's quite startling.
Now, go back and read what I wrote and respond
to it, or just give up.
> > Yes, per hour, drowning is quite deadly, isn't it?
>
> Sorry, Robert. The data talks about SWIMMING.
Bullshit. What data? Not on the WISQARS. The
word 'swimming' may be used but I have never seen
this differentiated from other drowning deaths. So
what raw data are you using for this?
> > You know what discourages people from
> > cycling? Getting run over by a *$#@**$#
> > car.
>
> No, because that happens only about 700 times in the entire USA, which
> makes it very rare. It's the _fear_ of that which discourages people
> from cycling - and as usual, you're doing your level best to increase
> that fear....
FATALITIES AGAIN. Amazing.
There may be only about 700-800 cyclist deaths each
year (US). There are also about 30 times as many (~25,000)
hospitalized after colliding with cars every year. That's
25,000 people each year massively discouraged from
cycling. If the injury is ugly enough, many of these victims
will be discouraged from ever riding a bike again as long
as they live. And many of their friends and family members
will feel the same way. I've seen it happen. It is not rare.
So look at it this way: my warnings about cycling injuries,
and my giving simple advice about how to avoid them
(awareness), is my own way of encouraging cycling, for
the long term.
> Here's the difference: People promoting swimming say things like
> "learn to swim." They don't say "You might drown!!!"
Learn to swim because you might drown, is what
they say. In the same way, beginning cyclists need
to hear 'learn to stay aware in traffic, or you're going
to get hurt.'
I don't hear you telling beginning riders 'learn
to swim.' What I hear is a lot of 'don't worry,
be happy.' It's irresponsible.
Robert
Bill Baka
<Everything snipped>
Sports that kill.
1. Doing no sports.
2. Watching sports on TV and drinking beer while smoking.
3. Eating junk food and getting way overweight.
4. Taking an elevator up 3 or less floors.
5. Continue this trend.
While I couldn't ride today I did at least go out and do some running,
sprints to get the heart rate up. I am 57. Could that have killed me?
Maybe. Could never doing that kill me? Definitely. You choose, activity
that puts you off your safe couch, cage/car, or a slow death from self
induced deterioration. I will always choose to stay in the best shape
that income requirements allow me the time for, (40 hour jobs suck), and
when I get to retire I will ride, run, hike, row (no motors), lift
weights, or whatever keeps me going and fit. Right now I do more
computer than television and that is too much.
Bill Baka
Sorni
> While I couldn't ride today I did at least go out and do some running,
> sprints to get the heart rate up.
Sniff. What is that? Anyone else smell that?
Why, it's BILLSHIT! {tm}
Just a (Wild Bill) guess... BS
Bill Baka
I at least have the pleasure of knowing I should outlive you long enough
to piss on your grave.
Grin.
Bill
Tom Keats
Bill Baka <LARR...@SBCGLOBAL.NET> writes:
> I will always choose to stay in the best shape
> that income requirements allow me the time for, (40 hour jobs suck)
I'm currently working at a Hudson Bay Company warehouse (on the cross-dock,
graveyard shift,) moving goods from trailers on one side of the building,
to trailers on the other side of the building.
I love it. I love the physical activity, plus not having to answer
telephones or inventing excuses on the fly for why things aren't
working right. The folks with whom I'm working are wonderful, and
represent a great diversity of exotic (to me) cultures.
It's possible to enjoy 40-hour jobs /and/ work to live,and
lead a "balanced" life, instead of living to work.
Not having any money at all is what sux. Having enough to
get by on is great. And perhaps surprisingly, one doesn't
really need all that much money, if one plays one's cards right.
There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Edward Dolan
"Tom Keats" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tgi0vd...@vcn.bc.ca...
> In article <PJMQf.53142$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bill Baka <LARR...@SBCGLOBAL.NET> writes:
>
>> I will always choose to stay in the best shape
>> that income requirements allow me the time for, (40 hour jobs suck)
>
> I'm currently working at a Hudson Bay Company warehouse (on the
> cross-dock,
> graveyard shift,) moving goods from trailers on one side of the building,
> to trailers on the other side of the building.
>
> I love it. I love the physical activity, plus not having to answer
> telephones or inventing excuses on the fly for why things aren't
> working right. The folks with whom I'm working are wonderful, and
> represent a great diversity of exotic (to me) cultures.
>
> It's possible to enjoy 40-hour jobs /and/ work to live,and
> lead a "balanced" life, instead of living to work.
>
> Not having any money at all is what sux. Having enough to
> get by on is great. And perhaps surprisingly, one doesn't
> really need all that much money, if one plays one's cards right.
>
> There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
> The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
Looks like we got a regular Eric Hoffer in the making here. Now if he would
only say something the least bit intelligent from time to time we could
maybe hope for a book from him on the philosophy of the working man.
I especially like that shit about a "balanced" life, whatever the hell that
is. Greek philosophy 101 anyone?
Here's hoping you get run over by one of those trailers, the sooner the
better.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Bill Baka
> In article <PJMQf.53142$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bill Baka <LARR...@SBCGLOBAL.NET> writes:
>
>
>>I will always choose to stay in the best shape
>>that income requirements allow me the time for, (40 hour jobs suck)
>
>
> I'm currently working at a Hudson Bay Company warehouse (on the cross-dock,
> graveyard shift,) moving goods from trailers on one side of the building,
> to trailers on the other side of the building.
>
> I love it. I love the physical activity, plus not having to answer
> telephones or inventing excuses on the fly for why things aren't
> working right. The folks with whom I'm working are wonderful, and
> represent a great diversity of exotic (to me) cultures.
Beats the hell out of electronics and sitting in a cubicle all day. I
actually would enjoy a labor intensive job but try to get one at 57,
(too old, they say). Too old for electronics too, since they want new
graduates (cheaper) who will work 60 hour weeks (unmarried geeks).
>
> It's possible to enjoy 40-hour jobs /and/ work to live,and
> lead a "balanced" life, instead of living to work.
Yeah, it's just that when I was young I thought electronics would be
around forever and never thought that I would get "Globalized" out of
work or that so many H1-B visa workers with pumped up college degrees
would put me out. My dad may have been right when he said get a good
steady union job.
>
> Not having any money at all is what sux. Having enough to
> get by on is great. And perhaps surprisingly, one doesn't
> really need all that much money, if one plays one's cards right.
I get by but the wife keeps wanting more than I can afford right now. I
used to have money to burn, but this isn't one of those times.
>
> There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
> The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
True, but they keep you in good health if you don't smoke and drink too
much like the average labor worker. Avoiding those "roach coaches" is a
good idea too, and you may make 100 and still be riding.
Best to you.
Bill
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
Claire Petersky
news:tgi0vd...@vcn.bc.ca...
> There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
> The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
An advantage of body-work jobs is that your brain is available during your
free time, instead of being exhausted.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
Bill Baka
> "Tom Keats" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tgi0vd...@vcn.bc.ca...
>
>
>>There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
>>The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
>
>
>
> An advantage of body-work jobs is that your brain is available during your
> free time, instead of being exhausted.
>
accidentally knowing too much and not limiting myself in a conversation
in a group. It gets really bad with a bunch of rednecks, which is pretty
much where I live. I also talk faster than most, which likewise gets
them mad at me. In electronics, everybody is out to try to look good by
being faster, smarter, etc. If you carry that home with you it causes
trouble. A body-work job would be nice for me at this point but I still
like to read and keep up on technical stuff and usually do math in my
head that has other people running for a calculator. What amazes me is
that instead of thanking me for the quick answer they get mad about me
"showing off".
What is it with people?
Bill
Sorni
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>> An advantage of body-work jobs is that your brain is available
>> during your free time, instead of being exhausted.
> I like to keep it sharp but then I have been branded a smart ass for
> accidentally knowing too much and not limiting myself in a
> conversation in a group.
Cliff Clavin couldn't have said it better.
<eg>
Bill Baka
what I said is true of my social life. The only bike buddies I have are
my grandkids and they assume an adult will talk way over their heads
most of the time, but at least they ask me to elaborate and I will try
to educate when possible. On this thread that does include not riding in
front of cars or taking a jump they can't possibly make. On the other
hand I find that most adults feel insulted by advice, sometimes even
when I just offer to help them with their car.
I think we lost the thread again.
Bill
r15...@aol.com
> I'm currently working at a Hudson Bay Company warehouse (on the cross-dock,
> graveyard shift,) moving goods from trailers on one side of the building,
> to trailers on the other side of the building.
>
> I love it. I love the physical activity, ...
Have you ever thought about becoming a bike messenger?
Seems right up your alley. Smart folks who work hard and
enjoy physical exertion can find themselves making some
pretty fair money there compared to a lot of 'body-jobs,'
and it's a fair bet that you would enjoy the work.
> plus not having to answer
> telephones or inventing excuses on the fly for why things aren't
> working right.
On second thought....
> There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
> The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
I think some of the deprecation comes from
folks who are resentful that their personal pursuit
of livelihood is making them fatter and sicker by
the day. They may find the trade-off they have
made is killing them, and at some point, they're
locked in and it's really too late to fix it.
Maybe that's what happened to Ed D@lan.
Got to use it or lose it is really what it comes down
to.
Robert
Bill Baka
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>
>>I'm currently working at a Hudson Bay Company warehouse (on the cross-dock,
>>graveyard shift,) moving goods from trailers on one side of the building,
>>to trailers on the other side of the building.
>>
>>I love it. I love the physical activity, ...
>
>
> Have you ever thought about becoming a bike messenger?
> Seems right up your alley. Smart folks who work hard and
> enjoy physical exertion can find themselves making some
> pretty fair money there compared to a lot of 'body-jobs,'
> and it's a fair bet that you would enjoy the work.
No upper body workout unless you do a lot of bunny hops and jumps.
>
>
>>plus not having to answer
>>telephones or inventing excuses on the fly for why things aren't
>>working right.
>
>
> On second thought....
>
>
>>There are body-work jobs, and there are brain-work jobs.
>>The body-work jobs have been too deprecated.
Have you ever seen any buff nerds/geeks? I had a supervisor once that
looked like his blood pressure was so high he was going to explode and
he had a BMI of about 40. He may have had the rank but I would not have
wanted to be him.
>
>
> I think some of the deprecation comes from
> folks who are resentful that their personal pursuit
> of livelihood is making them fatter and sicker by
> the day. They may find the trade-off they have
> made is killing them, and at some point, they're
> locked in and it's really too late to fix it.
I had one of those jobs and every day instead of eating lunch I would
grab my bike and ride around a mountain with about 1000 feet of climbing
before the coast back down to work. That got me so pumped I forgot about
eating until after work and then rode again to forget all that desk crud
in my head.
>
> Maybe that's what happened to Ed D@lan.
>
> Got to use it or lose it is really what it comes down
> to.
Both body and mind, though.
>
> Robert
>
Go for it.
Bill
Mike Kruger
>
> Have you ever seen any buff nerds/geeks?
The data architect around the corner from me is a cat 3 bike racer. Not a
lot of body fat on those guys.
One of the programming managers I worked with a lot used to lift weights. I
think he lifted more when projects weren't going well (since there was more
stress). Nice guy, never got mad, but definitely a physical presence.
r15...@aol.com
> > Have you ever thought about becoming a bike messenger?
> > Seems right up your alley. Smart folks who work hard and
> > enjoy physical exertion can find themselves making some
> > pretty fair money there compared to a lot of 'body-jobs,'
> > and it's a fair bet that you would enjoy the work.
>
> No upper body workout unless you do a lot of bunny hops and jumps.
HA! Throw about 4 0 lbs. of paper into a box, and haul
it around with one arm for a few miles. See what that does
for ya.
> Have you ever seen any buff nerds/geeks?
I have. But the vast majority of em look like they're going
to keel over at any moment.
> > Got to use it or lose it is really what it comes down
> > to.
> Both body and mind, though.
True. True.
Like Tom said, balance.
R.
Claire Petersky
news:1142224520....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Have you ever seen any buff nerds/geeks?
>
> I have. But the vast majority of em look like they're going
> to keel over at any moment.
Not Dane Buson.
Dane Buson
> <r15...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1142224520....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Have you ever seen any buff nerds/geeks?
>>
>> I have. But the vast majority of em look like they're going
>> to keel over at any moment.
>
> Not Dane Buson.
See, now I'm not sure whether I should be pleased because you are
positing that I'm full of vim and vigor (which I am) [1]. Or should I
be dismayed at you saying I'm a nerd/geek. Which I'm not. At all [3].
There, see, nothing geeky on display at all!
[1] Why I'm full of leonine vigor, can cycle up mountains, eat most
anything that doesn't eat me first, do all my own bike maintenance,
kill germs on contact, and cycle through Seattle winters without
melting. I'm half man, half Clif bar. [2]
[2] ;-)
[3] /me hides my Origami books, and my programming books. Oops, also
my modified copy of the tin source code. Hmm, I'll need to go and
change the contact info on my WHOIS records for unixbigots.org. Hmm,
and my limited edition autographed copy of "Raging geekdom, this
really is my bag baby".
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
X windows. Even your dog won't like it.
Claire Petersky
news:ujuoe3-...@zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> See, now I'm not sure whether I should be pleased because you are
> positing that I'm full of vim and vigor (which I am) [1]. Or should I
> be dismayed at you saying I'm a nerd/geek. Which I'm not. At all [3].
In case you can't tell:
http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php?im
I'm nearly all nerd, just a little geeky.
Claire Petersky
http://www.okaycupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815
Sorni
> "Dane Buson" <da...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:ujuoe3-...@zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
>> See, now I'm not sure whether I should be pleased because you are
>> positing that I'm full of vim and vigor (which I am) [1]. Or should
>> I be dismayed at you saying I'm a nerd/geek. Which I'm not. At all
>> [3].
>
> In case you can't tell:
>
> http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php?im
>
> I'm nearly all nerd, just a little geeky.
I got "Definitely not nerdy, you are probably cool."
SHOWS WHAT THEY KNOW! LOL
RonSonic
wrote:
>Oops, wrong test -- you know how many of these there are?
>
>http://www.okaycupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815
Hey, I'm a "Modern, Cool Nerd."
Groovey.
Ron
Bill Baka
I'm 40% nerd.
Oh well.
Bill
Dane Buson
> Claire Petersky cpet...@mouse-potato.com wrote in news:q1oSf.2140$HW2.1192
>
>> In case you can't tell:
>>
>> http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php?im
>>
>> I'm nearly all nerd, just a little geeky.
>
> "Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!."
Don't whip out that slide rule of mightyness just yet Poindexter.
>7% scored higher (more nerdy), and 93% scored lower (less nerdy).
> Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
When in trouble or in doubt,
run in circles, scream and shout.
Dane Buson
> "Dane Buson" <da...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:ujuoe3-...@zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
>> See, now I'm not sure whether I should be pleased because you are
>> positing that I'm full of vim and vigor (which I am) [1]. Or should I
>> be dismayed at you saying I'm a nerd/geek. Which I'm not. At all [3].
>
> In case you can't tell:
>
> http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php?im
>
> I'm nearly all nerd, just a little geeky.
Pure Nerd
60 % Nerd, 43% Geek, 30% Dork
Could be worse. Actually, looking at some of my former classmates
in engineering, it could be far *far* worse.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
I can feel for her because, although I have never been an Alaskan prostitute
dancing on the bar in a spangled dress, I still get very bored with washing
and ironing and dishwashing and cooking day after relentless day.
-- Betty MacDonald
Pat Lamb
> Little Meow <me...@meow.meow> wrote:
>> Claire Petersky cpet...@mouse-potato.com wrote in news:q1oSf.2140$HW2.1192
>>
>>> In case you can't tell:
>>>
>>> http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php?im
>>>
>>> I'm nearly all nerd, just a little geeky.
>> 8% scored higher (more nerdy), and 92% scored lower (less nerdy).
>> "Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!."
>
> Don't whip out that slide rule of mightyness just yet Poindexter.
>
>> 7% scored higher (more nerdy), and 93% scored lower (less nerdy).
>> Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!
>
Tyro. 2% higher, 98% lower; "Nerd God!"
Wonder what put me over; daily ssh, knowing my own IP address, or
correctly identifying the pictures...
:)
Pat
Dane Buson
>>> 8% scored higher (more nerdy), and 92% scored lower (less nerdy).
>>> "Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!."
>>
>> Don't whip out that slide rule of mightyness just yet Poindexter.
>>
>>> 7% scored higher (more nerdy), and 93% scored lower (less nerdy).
>>> Supreme Nerd. Apply for a professorship at MIT now!!!
>
> Tyro. 2% higher, 98% lower; "Nerd God!"
I'm not worthy!
/grovels
> Wonder what put me over; daily ssh, knowing my own IP address, or
> correctly identifying the pictures...
I probably lost some points for not being into bleeding edge gadgets
and similar things.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"A Sunday School is a prison in which children do penance for
the evil conscience of their parents." -H. L. Mencken
Ryan Cousineau
Pat Lamb <pdl678...@comcast.net> wrote:
83rd percentile. I'm not sure the correct goal is to be nerdier, mind.
I'm pretty sure I got the IDs (had to be Maxwell, right?), and for goofy
reasons I do ssh daily, but don't know my current IP address (know how
to check it, just don't care. Besides, it's some locally assigned IP
from my router, which is of course NAT'ing the assigned IP from my ISP.
Narf! Narf!)
Ahem. I'm not that nerdy. I've seen the sun today.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos