More on relative risks and benefits of cycling

[Frank Krygowski]

[Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]

Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Risks+cycling+walking+driving+context/8632074/story.html

Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that bicycling is less dangerous.

Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles and in cars.

Cheers

[Dan O]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> [Second try, hoping to get Google Groups to cooperate. Sorry if this turns up as a duplicate.]
>
>
>
> Since we've been discussing relative risks, this article is pertinent:
>
>
>
> http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Risks+cycling+walking+driving+context/8632074/story.html
>

So first, throw out any "sporty" bike riding.

"So when deciding what mode of transportation to use, it is important to consider the death rate... "

No thanks. Guess I'll just go on disregarding the "death rate" at my own peril.

"Using distance rather than trips shows that cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable road users."

More vulnerable than people in padded steel cages? Who would have guessed?

>
>
> Oddly, the lead author is one who has long been saying segregated facilities are absolutely necessary. Perhaps she should switch to educating the public on how safe and beneficial cycling already is.
>

The public knows how beneficial cycling already is. The problem is their perception that it's not safe. She's addressing that with an "approach modelled on countries that have achieved higher rates of active travel".

Also, lowering motor vehicle speeds would not just reduce injuries all the way around, but go a long way toward making bicyclists and pedestrians feel more comfortable *and* do their respective things.

[Dan O]

Did you catch the byline:

"Opinion: Constructive discussion needed"

:-)

[Duane]

Notice how it states the proposition and then claims that this includes
lots of MTB riders and suggest that we compare to something else that
shows what the author wants to say? Sound familiar? That's how you can
make stats say whatever you want. At least one way...

[Lou Holtman]

Nobody is interested Frank. Geez, go ride bike instead of wearing us out
with all this drivel again and again and again and again....
--
Lou

[Andre Jute]

Krygowski is the last man standing in the wasteland he's singlehandedly turned RBT into.

Andre Jute

[Jay Beattie]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:38:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Per mile or kilometer traveled is a highly inaccurate way of comparing risk. It should be done on a per-time basis. And what is a "trip"? When I go on a weekend ride of 70 miles, is that a "trip" -- and when I walk to the burrito cart about 300 meters from office, is that also a "trip"? Seems like significant disparity in "trips."

Also, the statistic is for auto involved injuries. Ordinary falls account for many bicycling injuries -- Jobst, for example, broke his hip and femur in separate falls while riding. I've broken ribs, separated a shoulder and messed up my face. My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved. The pedestrian number should be adjusted as well. The auto number already includes single vehicle accidents.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 11/07/13 05:39, Duane wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 3:07 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

>>> http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Risks+cycling+walking+driving+context/8632074/story.html

>> FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different
>> statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set
>> statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that
>> bicycling is less dangerous.
>>
>> Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles
>> and in cars.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
>
> Notice how it states the proposition and then claims that this includes
> lots of MTB riders and suggest that we compare to something else that
> shows what the author wants to say? Sound familiar? That's how you can
> make stats say whatever you want. At least one way...

Yeah, I was shocked. I can never ride my MTB again for fear of a TBI,
though I've crashed a few times and not suffered one yet while out
MTBing. Oh well.

--
JS

[Duane]

Well I think that if you take serious injuries instead of just fatalities
and divide the number of injuries by the participants you'll get a good
idea of the risk. But if you don't use disparate qualifiers like number of
trips or miles traveled then you can manipulate the results.

Everyone here thinks cycling os relatively safe but most of us have been or
know someone who has been injured at it. Why not try to make it safer?
This schtick about comparing it to pedestrian accidents is just
misdirection.

The real elephant in the room here is that the worst cycling accidents
involve motor vehicles and these guys are telling you to ride in traffic,
don't wear helmets and stay away from facilities. It seems to me that if
the AHZ/VC guys actually got their way cycling actually would become
dangerous.

I'm with Lou. Go ride a bike and stop slinging this crap around. No one
is interested.

--
duane

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:54:55 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>
>
> Well I think that if you take serious injuries instead of just fatalities
>
> and divide the number of injuries by the participants you'll get a good
>
> idea of the risk. But if you don't use disparate qualifiers like number of
>
> trips or miles traveled then you can manipulate the results.
>
>
>
> Everyone here thinks cycling os relatively safe but most of us have been or
>
> know someone who has been injured at it. Why not try to make it safer?
>
> This schtick about comparing it to pedestrian accidents is just
>
> misdirection.
>
>
>
> The real elephant in the room here is that the worst cycling accidents
>
> involve motor vehicles and these guys are telling you to ride in traffic,
>
> don't wear helmets and stay away from facilities. It seems to me that if
>
> the AHZ/VC guys actually got their way cycling actually would become
>
> dangerous.
>
>
>
> I'm with Lou. Go ride a bike and stop slinging this crap around. No one
>
> is interested.

Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."

Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.

Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!

- Frank Krygowski

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-10-2013 15:07, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> FANTASTIC ARTICLE! Once again an article shows how different statistics can be used to arrive at different conclusuions. one set statesthat bicycling is more dangerous and theother states that bicycling is less dangerous.
>
> Be careful riding out there because idiots abound on foot, on bicycles and in cars.

And in statistics and journalism.

--
Wes Groleau

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
come by their ignorance the hard way.
— Kurt Vonnegut

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-10-2013 18:54, Duane wrote:
> The real elephant in the room here is that the worst cycling accidents
> involve motor vehicles and these guys are telling you to ride in traffic,

None of my cycling accidents involved motor vehicles.

The worst one involved a teenager (me) going downhill at over forty mile
per hour in the mountains on a curvy gravel road. With no shoes,
no shirt, and short pants.

No broken bones, though.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Some just felt compelled to point out that the statistics were used to show that bicycling was MORE dangerous and then LESS dangerous than other activities. As Samuel Clemens is often credited with stating, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".

Cheerio old chap.

[Duane]

Right. Not much interest in the subject, just fatigue with the endless junk
science.

--
duane

[Duane]

Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 07-10-2013 18:54, Duane wrote:
>> The real elephant in the room here is that the worst cycling accidents
>> involve motor vehicles and these guys are telling you to ride in traffic,
>
> None of my cycling accidents involved motor vehicles.
>
> The worst one involved a teenager (me) going downhill at over forty mile
> per hour in the mountains on a curvy gravel road. With no shoes,
> no shirt, and short pants.
>
> No broken bones, though.

Neither have mine knock on wood. My worst was a separated shoulder after
hitting a curb that I didn't see in the driving rain. But the worst ones
that I read about, especially involving fatalities are usually involving
cars c


--
duane

[datakoll]

we'll get dwon on accident potential...next year.

Passed muh first cyclist riding in an isolated bike lane to left of off lane into a boat ramp/hotel area with 2 lanes to bike lane left running up to toll booth for bridge.

A long bike lane and a long sight distance for vehicles.

A difficult, counter intuitive decision to proceed at a 35mph posted limit passing the cyclist who was not wear colors nor back light.

Having hit suicidal deer, my decision process saw he cyclist turn right into the radiator as 1 of 10.

Not good.

But who am I right ?

[datakoll]

.....


ideal conclusion to the discussion is Frank getting the city bus.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here. And any tiny > >doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.
>
>Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!

I think of it this way: if somebody thinks that something they are
doing has danger associated with it, they're careful - and in much less
danger.

OTOH, if somebody does something that has inerrant dangers in it yet
thinks they are perfectly safe, they are less safe.

I see this locally with a particular freeway "merge or die" on-ramp.
You'd think there would be accidents on an almost daily basis but in 20
years of daily commuting, I never saw a single accident on that ramp.

One explanation is that it really isn't very dangerous.... but the one
that makes the most sense to me is that people perceive the potential
danger and act accordingly.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

I think that makes sense. It's what Monderman is famous for preaching. And it's a corrolary of the risk compensation hypothesis, which at its essence states that people do adjust their behavior based on their perception of risk.

As I've said, the problem isn't so much risk compensation, as risk OVER-compensation, caused by mistaken perceptions. So in terms of the issue at hand, people have had about 25 years of propaganda that bicycling is extremely dangerous. They believe it, and so choose not to ride a bike, thus losing the benefits of cycling, which greatly exceed it's minimal risks.

On the other side of the coin, we have people who are told that special hats and various weird facilities almost completely remove the purportedly great risks of cycling. The result is know-nothings blasting along in door zone bike lanes, or passing turning trucks at the curb.

Accurate education (through many available channels) seems a much more logical way to promote cycling, instead of the current method: "Pretend it's really dangerous, and pretend that only special hats and weird facilities everywhere will make it tremendously safe."

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:20:09 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>
>
> Right. Not much interest in the subject, just fatigue with the endless junk
>
> science.

Sure, Duane. Data on millions of miles ridden between fatalities is "junk science." So are the many studies showing benefits of cycling far exceeding its risks. So are danger comparisons between bicycling and other common activities.

But your speculations, without data, on "what about serious injuries?" are fine. So are the anecdotes like "I know somebody who broke their wrist." And of course, the ever-popular "I know it saved my life!!!" tales. IOW, speculations, anecdotes and statements of faith trump data, and "prove" that we should never portray cycling as safe.

You seem to have no idea what _science_ really is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

>
> Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."
>

Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to
show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly
thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some
people who do. I think you like it because it mirrors your common
argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation
modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for
facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.

But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,
definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is
being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to
try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments
are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you
wanted.

What do you want us to say?

That people who take less risks are less apt to get hurt?

That bicycling is not so dangerous that people should be afraid to
participate? Hello... Earth to Frank...

That bicycling is not terribly dangerous?

"Definition of DANGER: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm,
or loss"

I'm not even going to look up the definition of "terrible", because
I think in any case that's going to be a matter of opinion. IOW,
you're asking us to adopt your opinion.

What do you *not* want to hear us say? (Exact quote, and preferably
context, please.) This should be easy, as you seem to not like *something*
that I said above.

>
> Somehow, stories claiming "I barely avoided death on my bike!" get a lot more fans here.
>

Cite?

> And any tiny doubt about those "Danger!" stories is treated quite harshly.
>

Any tiny doubt? Quite? Frank, are you hearing yourself?

Summary opinion-based discounting, judgmental victim blaming, statistical
obfuscation, and idealistic zealotry will be taken for what it is.

>
> Such a strange set of bicycling advocates!
>

You erect strawmen, splatter manure on them, then stand back and
emphatically appraise them.

[Duane]

And calls it science.
--
duane

[Lou Holtman]

We struggled through hundreds of posts about the virtues of wearing a
helmet again. You must have noticed that these threads always end up in
name calling, endless ' yes it is, no it isn't' discussions and
citing/questioning (mickey mouse) statistics. The last helmet discussion
was just fading away and here you are starting a new bicycle safety thread
as if you liked te be kicked in the ass. So I don't understand why you
complaining. Cycling is as dangerous as one experience it. That is it. I
can't change someone else his experience and you can't either.
I'm just back from a week riding in the Dolomites and told a collegue that
I did 88 km/hr in a descent. He said he found that dangerously fast on 23
mm tires. I didn't had the intention to explain to him that it wasn't
dangerous at all. If he finds that dangerous it IS dangerous for him. End
of discussion. It is all about the fun of riding bike, with helmet/ without
helmet, on a bikepath/ off a bikepath. I don't know about you but I have
fun riding bike even if it was a little chilly ;-)

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wIOhdOMWLp4/UdM2nkjxz_I/AAAAAAAAEV8/FbsqSXXQwow/s1024/IMAGE_00B017E5-71EB-4A41-A063-CFEDB60A02FF.JPG
--
Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.) And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."
>
> >
>
>
>
> Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?

Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".

>
>
>
> I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to
>
> show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly
>
> thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some
>
> people who do.

Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.

> I think you like it because it mirrors your common
>
> argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation
>
> modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for
>
> facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.
>
>
>
> But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,
>
> definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".

I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show." I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.

> Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is
>
> being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to
>
> try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments
>
> are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you
>
> wanted.
>
>
>
> What do you want us to say?

Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):

"I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."
"You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."
"If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
"The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."
"Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."

The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:22:33 PM UTC-4, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> We struggled through hundreds of posts about the virtues of wearing a
>
> helmet again.

Lou, I'm sorry you didn't find that interesting. But the solution is simple. When a thread doesn't interest you, don't read it. It's never mandatory.

> You must have noticed that these threads always end up in
>
> name calling, endless ' yes it is, no it isn't' discussions and
>
> citing/questioning (mickey mouse) statistics. The last helmet discussion
>
> was just fading away and here you are starting a new bicycle safety thread
>
> as if you liked te be kicked in the ass.

Actually, the helmet-specific thread had stopped. The thread that made this pertinent was labeled something like "refectors" and had various people saying it _can't_ be true that cycling might be safer than walking.

On the heels of that discussion, up pops a newspaper article by a couple of public health specialists, making some of the same points I'd been making. (Incidentally, I didn't go looking for that article; instead, someone not on this list who knew my interest pointed me to it.)

I'm surprised you feel I shouldn't link to it. If (say) Duane found an article with data proving that riding in Quebec is deadly, do you really think he'd keep it secret? If Scharf found an article proving that sideways flags save hundreds of lives each year, would he fail to post it?

> Cycling is as dangerous as one experience it. That is it. I
>
> can't change someone else his experience and you can't either.

Our club's next small safety effort is going to be to re-distribute our handouts explaining why it's dangerous to ride facing traffic, salmon-style. Of course, those salmon riders do that because they think it's too dangerous to ride in the proper direction. Oddly, we do think that a good explanation can change their experience, and for the better. At least, we hope so.

- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>I think that makes sense. It's what Monderman is famous for preaching. And it's a corrolary of the risk compensation hypothesis, which at its essence states that people do adjust their behavior based on their perception of risk.
>
>As I've said, the problem isn't so much risk compensation, as risk OVER-compensation, caused by mistaken perceptions. So in terms of the issue at hand, people have had about 25 years of propaganda that bicycling is extremely dangerous. They believe it, and so choose not to ride a bike, thus losing the benefits of cycling, which greatly exceed it's minimal risks.
>
>On the other side of the coin, we have people who are told that special hats and various weird facilities almost completely remove the purportedly great risks of cycling. The result is know-nothings blasting along in door zone bike lanes, or passing turning trucks at the curb.
>
>Accurate education (through many available channels) seems a much more logical way to promote cycling, instead of the current method: "Pretend it's really dangerous, and pretend that only special hats and weird facilities everywhere will make it tremendously safe."

That one made my "Keepers" file...
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jay Beattie]

The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved. Breathless arguments about gardening helmets, partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc., etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.

The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!" But with insults and overwrought argument, the immediate response is going to be negative -- expressed most succinctly by Dan O.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

I thought lawyers were supposed to be long winded and overly verbose.
That was pretty succinctly put. +1

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Frank - I'm going to say it a little differently. I won't say
"bicycling is dangerous". I WILL say there is a "certain elevated
level of risk" involved in cycling. Manage those risks, and cycling
is relatively safe.

Managing those risks involves identifying the risks, and doing
whatever is necessary to make sure they never get beyond being a
"risk" to you. Pretending the dangers don't exist gets you injured or
killed.

To ME, one of the risks inherent in riding is that I "might" come off
the bike in an unplanned manner, and if I do, the probability of my
head finding something as hard or harder than it is substantial
(contrary to the opinion of many regarding the hardness of my head).
Managing that risk involves being carefull where and how I ride, to
minimise the risk of coming off the bicycle at speed - and minimizing
the chance of serious injury by wearing a "brain bucket". My though
there is "if you haven't got anything to fill it, you don't need it".

After my daughter lost control of her bike in loose sand on a downhill
curve (on concrete - due to a washout) and hit her head on a concrete
retaining wall - severely cracking the helmet but walking away with
only a slightly sore neck for her troubles - I'm a believer in those
"foam hats".

[Frank Krygowski]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:41:25 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
> > The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.
>
>
>
> The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved.

OK, Jay, let me ask a serious question that I think you should be able to answer. In legal disputes, whatever the issue being contested: If an expert witness on one side of a case presents numbers taken from government data, collected by professionals in a field like public health, using metrics that are commonly used in countries around the world, are those data usually treated so disrespectfully? Is "That's just stupid" usually a successful rebuttal?

ISTM that if you, or someone else wanting to "prove" that bicycling is dangerous, should be able to come up with a standard metric that doesn't collapse under simple scrutiny. So far the closest "winners" are raw injury count (which ignores that per-participant injuries are not high and that almost all injuries are minor), and fatalities-per-mile worse than motoring (which ignores that omitting super-safe auto freeway miles yields very similar rates for motoring and cycling. Remember that GAO study?)


> Breathless arguments about gardening helmets..

Oh, stuff it, Jay. I never called for gardening helmets. I pointed to a large survey that showed that cyclists are injured much less often than even gardeners, which got no cogent rebuttal, just mockery. The "gardening helmet" was Scharf's and Duane's schtick.

> ... partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc.

And you've stated all that with the apparently deeply held conviction that the "solid biomechanical evidence" has incontestably proven your case - which, based on your phrasing, is at the moment something about the great value of bike helmets. Two points, then:

1. The article I cited above had nothing at all to do with bike helmets. In fact, the word does not appear in the article. TBI was mentioned only briefly, showing that cycling's TBI rate is not high. The article was dealing with the (small) risks of cycling relative to other activities, and relative to cycling's benefits. (So please don't accuse _me_ of a helmet fixation!)

2. If the "solid biomechanical evidence" really does settle the helmet question - whatever you imagine the specific question to be - then why, after 25 years of intense helmet promotion, is the question still so unsettled? Why are almost all bike share programs _not_ providing helmets, and seeing no problem? Why are national and international cycling organizations (even LAB) taking positions against MHLs? Whatever's convinced you has not convinced those _seriously_ studying helmet issues.

, etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.
>
>
>
> The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!"

How about "My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved." How often do you say those things? And why?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Fine. Many people here really appreciate such anecdotes. But as explained in the article at the top of the thread, their are certain elevated risks in other common activities as well. They show up in the numbers.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Risks+cycling+walking+driving+context/8632074/story.html

With the current counts, it seems all the mentioned transportation modes need more equipment and more warnings. But bicycling is the one labeled dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I think that the problem is more the fact that adults now see it
"cool" to ride a bike. Back when only kids rode bikes there was never
any discussion about helmets/not helmets.

I've always assumed that it was because kids have two justifications
for anything - Iwannadoit and Idonwannadoit. Adults, on the other
hand, apparently being rather unsure of themselves, seem to concoct
all kinds of justification for what they do - quote statistics pro or
con; spend hours arguing about it, etc.

Ban adults!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jay Beattie]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 5:50:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:41:25 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved.
>
>
>
> OK, Jay, let me ask a serious question that I think you should be able to answer. In legal disputes, whatever the issue being contested: If an expert witness on one side of a case presents numbers taken from government data, collected by professionals in a field like public health, using metrics that are commonly used in countries around the world, are those data usually treated so disrespectfully? Is "That's just stupid" usually a successful rebuttal?

We're not talking about data collection, we're talking about data use. For example: assume only fifty people died jumping off tall buildings last year, while five hundred died in car accidents. You would say, "so what's more dangerous, driving a car or jumping off a tall building? Clearly, it's driving a car!"

Bad data use has been the cause of thousands of lawsuits, from EMF to breast implants. It takes years to finally sort it all out, but by then, most of the money has been paid. It's bad epidemiology that has lead to reforms in the Federal Evidence Code over the last 20 years to weed out junk science.

> ISTM that if you, or someone else wanting to "prove" that bicycling is dangerous, should be able to come up with a standard metric that doesn't collapse under simple scrutiny. So far the closest "winners" are raw injury count (which ignores that per-participant injuries are not high and that almost all injuries are minor), and fatalities-per-mile worse than motoring (which ignores that omitting super-safe auto freeway miles yields very similar rates for motoring and cycling. Remember that GAO study?)
>
>
>
>
>
> > Breathless arguments about gardening helmets..
>
>
>
> Oh, stuff it, Jay. I never called for gardening helmets. I pointed to a large survey that showed that cyclists are injured much less often than even gardeners, which got no cogent rebuttal, just mockery. The "gardening helmet" was Scharf's and Duane's schtick.
>
>
>
> > ... partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc.
>
>
>
> And you've stated all that with the apparently deeply held conviction that the "solid biomechanical evidence" has incontestably proven your case - which, based on your phrasing, is at the moment something about the great value of bike helmets. Two points, then:
>
>
>
> 1. The article I cited above had nothing at all to do with bike helmets. In fact, the word does not appear in the article. TBI was mentioned only briefly, showing that cycling's TBI rate is not high. The article was dealing with the (small) risks of cycling relative to other activities, and relative to cycling's benefits. (So please don't accuse _me_ of a helmet fixation!)
>
>
>
> 2. If the "solid biomechanical evidence" really does settle the helmet question - whatever you imagine the specific question to be - then why, after 25 years of intense helmet promotion, is the question still so unsettled? Why are almost all bike share programs _not_ providing helmets, and seeing no problem? Why are national and international cycling organizations (even LAB) taking positions against MHLs? Whatever's convinced you has not convinced those _seriously_ studying helmet issues.
>
>
>
> , etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!"
>
>
>
> How about "My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved." How often do you say those things? And why?

Because it's true. My wife also had her face stitched up, due to a crash in a race (crashed by another rider). The woman who edged her out for the state championship got killed by a car. My best riding buddy was hit and had shoulder surgery. His wife, who is a national class MTB rider, had a very bad fall and deep bruises recently -- one of her teammates was in a coma after a crash in a criterium a year or two ago. One of my work mates got hit while riding on the Spring Water Corridor and had a real big scalp laceration (he now wears a helmet). Everyone I ride with has been injured at one point or another. It's just the way it goes if you ride a lot, particularly if you ride on trails.

And I don't "say this all the time" -- only when I get the Frank Fever, after you have gone on and on about how bicycling is no more dangerous that a yo-yo or playing Scrabble.

I also get on the ski lift and talk to many others like myself who are held together by titanium rods, pins, screws, plates, etc., etc. Oddly enough, I see them on the lifts almost six months a year (that's our season here). We're all still out there. Same thing with my cycling companions -- cranking out the miles, far more than the "activists" and self-appointed safety experts.

Simply recognizing past injuries or the potential for injury doesn't mean a person is condemning an activity or screaming "danger, danger!"

NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head.

-- Jay Beattie.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Hockey and football are getting their share of attention right now
too. Along with skateboarding.

It all comes down to risk management. Body checking in minor hockey
without helmets is not managing risks very well. Not in professional
hockey either - but when you are an "adult" you are responsible for
your risk taking. A kid is not.

In my opinion it is the same with cycling. Put a lid on the kid.
Period. When he's over 18, or 21 - whenever he is legally
responsiblefor his own actions it's his choice.
That's how it is in Ontario.

Put a motor on 2 wheels and you wear a helmet - period.
That's the law here. To me it makes sense. To many Americans it does
not, because it is considered "government interference" and goes
against "American freedom", and it has too much of a "pink" tint to
it.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 9:25:39 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Friday, July 12, 2013 5:50:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > OK, Jay, let me ask a serious question that I think you should be able to answer. In legal disputes, whatever the issue being contested: If an expert witness on one side of a case presents numbers taken from government data, collected by professionals in a field like public health, using metrics that are commonly used in countries around the world, are those data usually treated so disrespectfully? Is "That's just stupid" usually a successful rebuttal?
>
>
>
> We're not talking about data collection, we're talking about data use. For example: assume only fifty people died jumping off tall buildings last year, while five hundred died in car accidents. You would say, "so what's more dangerous, driving a car or jumping off a tall building? Clearly, it's driving a car!"

Wouldn't a "per mile" or "per hour" or "per trip" calculation kill that notion? Those are the kinds of metrics I've been emphasizing.

Raw counts are not completely without value, of course. There are people who emphasize total cost to society - statements like "Bicycle injuries cost our medical system $***,***,***,*** per year!!!" In those cases, it's instructive to do the same computation for motoring or walking. Or compare the costs to the benefits. This too has been done, has always come out strongly pro-cycling, and has been cited - and probably also dismissed as "junk science" by people with no real rebuttals.

> Bad data use has been the cause of thousands of lawsuits, from EMF to breast implants. It takes years to finally sort it all out, but by then, most of the money has been paid. It's bad epidemiology that has lead to reforms in the Federal Evidence Code over the last 20 years to weed out junk science.

Has it not weeded out "Well, I know a guy who..." evidence presented as science?

>
> > > ... I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!"

> >
>
> > How about "My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved." How often do you say those things? And why?
>
>
>
> Because it's true. My wife also had her face stitched up, due to a crash in a race (crashed by another rider). The woman who edged her out for the state championship got killed by a car. My best riding buddy was hit and had shoulder surgery. His wife, who is a national class MTB rider, had a very bad fall and deep bruises recently -- one of her teammates was in a coma after a crash in a criterium a year or two ago. One of my work mates got hit while riding on the Spring Water Corridor and had a real big scalp laceration (he now wears a helmet). Everyone I ride with has been injured at one point or another. It's just the way it goes if you ride a lot, particularly if you ride on trails.

Should we trade anecdotes? At last count, I've remembered six friends who died while motoring (one was on a motorcycle). My sister was hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk. My other sister and one brother and my grandmother were hit and got concussions while driving or riding in cars. A colleague at work had the same happen to him. I suppose I could go on, but...

If _everyone_ you ride with has been injured, are you really talking about injuries beyond skinned knees? I don't doubt that every bicyclist gets some slight road rash, most occurring on the knees, mostly when they're kids.

I still hear of falls on bikes. But injuries beyond "minor" (e.g. road rash or bruises) have been very rare among my friends, AFAIK. Most of the ones that rise to "moderate" (I can think of a couple broken ribs, broken collar bones, a broken arm, etc.) occurred either while doing challenging mountain biking or, believe it or not, on multi-use paths. Now it's always possible, I guess, that they're getting badly hurt and not telling me. But as club Safety Chairman, I think I'd probably hear about most serious injuries.

> And I don't "say this all the time" -- only when I get the Frank Fever, after you have gone on and on about how bicycling is no more dangerous that a yo-yo or playing Scrabble.

More hyperbole? And you accuse _me_ of statements like that?

> I also get on the ski lift and talk to many others like myself who are held together by titanium rods, pins, screws, plates, etc., etc. Oddly enough, I see them on the lifts almost six months a year (that's our season here). We're all still out there. Same thing with my cycling companions -- cranking out the miles, far more than the "activists" and self-appointed safety experts.
>
>
>
> Simply recognizing past injuries or the potential for injury doesn't mean a person is condemning an activity or screaming "danger, danger!"
>
>
>
> NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head.

<sigh> Well, we did have one pro-MHL statement in the past week or so, IIRC. But do you understand helmets are not my focus in this thread, yet _you_ are bringing them up? Why not stick to comparative risk, and risk relative to benefit?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 11:14:40 PM UTC-4, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> In my opinion it is the same with cycling. Put a lid on the kid.
>
> Period. When he's over 18, or 21 - whenever he is legally
>

> responsible for his own actions it's his choice.

>
> That's how it is in Ontario.
>
>
>
> Put a motor on 2 wheels and you wear a helmet - period.
>
> That's the law here. To me it makes sense.

"NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head. -- Jay Beattie"

Comments, Jay?

- Frank Krygowski

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-12-2013 20:50, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ISTM that if you, or someone else wanting to "prove" that bicycling is dangerous, should be able to come up with a standard metric that doesn't collapse under simple scrutiny. So far the closest "winners" are raw injury count (which ignores that per-participant injuries are not high and that almost all injuries are minor), and fatalities-per-mile worse than motoring (which ignores that omitting super-safe auto freeway miles yields very similar rates for motoring and cycling. Remember that GAO study?)

Wherever there are large numbers of variables, it will always be easy to
ignore the ones that don't correlate to the point you want to make.

Of course this raises accusations of dishonesty from the other side,
but often it is sincere and not an attempt to deceive.

--
Wes Groleau

Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

[Joe Riel]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> If _everyone_ you ride with has been injured, are you really talking
> about injuries beyond skinned knees? I don't doubt that every
> bicyclist gets some slight road rash, most occurring on the knees,
> mostly when they're kids.

Of the people I know, far more have been seriously injured in bicycle
crashes than anything else (many of the people I know are cyclists, so
this isn't a random sample). By serious injuries I mean, at minimum, a
broken bone. Abrasions don't really count, though one club member
picked up a flesh-eating bacterial infection from a minor fall. I can
recall broken legs, punctured lungs, and broken clavicles of teammates.
I've broken a femur and had a compression fracture of the upper spine
(separate incidents, years apart). I wouldn't be surprised if a quarter
of the members of my former cycling club [a road racing club] have had a
serious injury at some point. Most of the injuries did not occur in
races. No one I have personally known has died in a car crash. One guy
was killed on a bike, by a wrong-way driver on a one-way street.

Despite that, I don't claim, nor believe, that bicycling is particularly
dangerous, especially if you are actively attempting to reduce the
danger. Many of the injuries were caused by riders either pushing the
limit or otherwise exercising questionable judgement. Some were freak
occurrences. In one, which happened right beside me, a driver executed
a right hook, into a parking lot, then stopped, blocking our path. We
stopped, avoided hitting the car, but one guy fell over, his foot was
trapped by the pedal/frame and he suffered a spiral fracture of the
tibia.


--
Joe Riel

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:54:55 +0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
wrote:

> stay away from facilities.

That's "stay away from badly-designed, extremely-dangerous
facilities".

The ride before last, I very nearly put myself into the path of a kid
who came barrelling out of a sidewalk while I was checking the street
for traffic. Fine chance there for both of us to be carried off in
helicopters.

The "facilities" being built all over town are sidewalks.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:19:49 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:25:48 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Funny thing. Nobody here is interested. Yet seven people responded immediately! (Dan, as usual, responded twice to one post.)
>

I responded once to your post and once to SR's post. And what
are you, anyway - "control and release" usenet hall monitor?
No moderator here, baby. Go be prominent and recognized in
one of your "more serious" cliques. "Properly", indeed.

> And almost all used variations on the same themes: "The data showing bicycling is safe is wrong" or "You shouldn't post anything claiming bicycling is safe."

>>
>> Huh? Me? I said anything remotely like that? What do you mean?
>
> Correct, Dan, you didn't say anything like that. You're the main reason my sentence contains the words "_almost_ all...".
>

You *named* me as a respondant , and then *characterized* the
responses (quite falsely, I would say - no one is saying what
you imply: That bicycling is not safe and therefor any data
that says so must be wrong, or that you shouldn't post anything
claiming bicycling is safe. You just shouldn't _personally
denigrate_ anyone who suggests that in the real world bicycling
is not always as safe as your ideal.)

>>
>>
>>
>> I think you like that story because it first uses statistics to
>>
>> show that bicycling is not so all fired dangerous as it's commonly
>>
>> thought to be - *mostly* by people who don't ride, but also by some
>>
>> people who do.
>
> Yes, I do like it for that reason. Since I believe bicycling is good for society and the planet, and since certain interests have spent 25 years portraying bicycling as dangerous, I think "not so all fired dangerous" is an important message.
>

I notice the author seemed to say that the data was cause for
hand-wringing.

>> I think you like it because it mirrors your common
>>
>> argument about the flip side hazard of using less active transportation
>>
>> modes instead. Of course you take issue with the prescription for
>>
>> facilities, but you like most of the rest. It's your kind of thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> But a secondary theme of that article was "how to fiddle with numbers,
>>
>> definitions, and semantics to make them show what you want".
>
> I read it differently. Rather than "how to fiddle," I thought of it as "There are different ways to examine data. This is what some common methods of analysis show."
>

That's just a fancy way of saying, "They fiddled with the data."
Nothing wrong with that. It *has* to be done to make the data
meaningful. But what does the data mean?

Personally I just think that bicycling does not lend itself to
adequately complete and accurate data collection, that the
issues around what makes it safe or not for any individual is
extremely complicated, and that how safe it is for any individual
can be blown away by luck anyway.

I've said it before plenty of times: Crunching those numbers
like that is all well and good if you're an actuary. I'm not.

What was it they said? Something about when choosing a mode
of transport it is critical to compare the death rates? Fuck
that!

> I'm pretty happy with the results of all of those methods described, with a few minor caveats.
>
>> Raw numbers are completely meaningless without definitions of what is
>>
>> being measured. So selections are measured. "Adjustments" are made to
>>
>> try and make the data more meaningful. These selections and adjustments
>>
>> are rationalized and layered on, and then the result is supposed to be accepted. Even you don't like this whenever the result is not what you
>>
>> wanted.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you want us to say?
>
> Since you ask: Among bicyclists in general, and among people on this list, I'd like to see a lot less enthusiasm for the "Bicycling is dangerous" idea. Some here have said explicitly, quite a few times, that bicycling is dangerous. Most have said it by allusion. Recent examples (paraphrased):
>

The paraphrasing is one of the things that gets you in trouble.
You inject a reverse wave of your argument into what was said.
Strawman tactic. Extremely annoying.

> "I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."
> "You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."
> "If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
> "If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
> "The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."
> "Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."
>

Well, you snipped where I asked what do you *not* want us to say,
but whatever. (At least there is *nothing* there that I said...
not sure there's anything there that anyone else said, either. I
did ask for exact quotes - preferably with context.)

> The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes.
>

Not "even though" - rather *because* they're presented as opinion.
You should try it sometime.

> Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.
>

There's a lot of unscientific-ness in the world. It makes for
a lot of silly ideas, but that's all right. Constant practice
distinguishing baloney from roast beef is good for us.

Logic? Just between you and me, let's not even go there, pal ;-)

Anti-cycling? How dare they question the "good" propaganda? Look,
*you're* gilding lilies and sweeping stuff under the rug. And you
*egregiously* disparage anyone who happens to be in the way. It
is fruitcake chock full o' nuts to say any of us is "anti-cycling".

You and I are brothers, but have a wide gulf between us on this
matter. You see and portray bicycling as something damn near
perfectly safe (if done "properly"). Actually, we're not so
far apart on that.

I said long ago over and over that I could ride in such a way
that bicycling would be very, very safe. I think bicycling
(even *my* bicycling) *is* pretty safe; I can handle an awful
lot of crashing no problem. (I won't ride a crotch rocket or
any motorcycle for that matter on the road, though.) And I
happen to like a little danger. A lot of people do. But my
survival instinct is intact. In no way does my crazy riding
demonize anyone or everyone else's bicycling.

But people aren't perfect. And even if they don't make any
mistakes, someone else's mistake or an act of dog can come along
and fuck them over anyway.

And absolute safety is impossible, anyway. Safe is an entirely
relative concept, boiling down in practice to nothing more than
acceptable risk and due care. Come to think of it, whether or
not something is safe can only ever be opinion.

I motice people on bicycles, and I notice other people noticing
people on bicycles, and I perceive their perception of the
danger. It varies greatly, but in general it is usually
excessive, I think. But I don't think this is so much because
of fearmongering propaganda. Yes, it's a shared consciousness,
but I think it's based on something more internal.

But people can get over that by getting out there and finding
out for themselves what it's really like. I'm all for
*opporunities* for education and what not (for those whom can
benefit from it), and it pisses me off when you say I'm not.
What will get them over the first obstacle is facilities that
can isolate them from motor traffic. If, like Disney's Dumbo,
they need a "magic feather", too, nothing wrong with that.

[Dan]

> Comments... ?
>

A couple of things stand out for me:

The preface, "In my opinion... ", and the summation,

"To me it makes sense."

(Oh, one more: Use attribution; don't quote sigs.)

[Sepp Ruf]

cl...@snyder.on.ca:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> "I know someone who broke bones, which proves cycling's danger."
>> "You're crazy to ride anywhere except the far right of the lane; you'll get run over."
>> "If you ride without a high-powered strobe light in the daytime, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
>> "If you ride without a flag, you're at great risk of being hit by a car."
>> "The rarity of fatalities doesn't matter, there are probably lots of serious injuries on bikes."
>> "Data showing that cycling is safer than other activities must be flawed, because that's obviously false."
>>
>> The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements
>> are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just
>> personal opinion or anecdotes.

> Frank - I'm going to say it a little differently. I won't say
> "bicycling is dangerous". I WILL say there is a "certain elevated
> level of risk" involved in cycling. Manage those risks, and cycling
> is relatively safe.
>
> Managing those risks involves identifying the risks, and doing
> whatever is necessary to make sure they never get beyond being a
> "risk" to you. Pretending the dangers don't exist gets you injured or
> killed.
>
> To ME, one of the risks inherent in riding is that I "might" come off
> the bike in an unplanned manner, and if I do, the probability of my
> head finding something as hard or harder than it is substantial
> (contrary to the opinion of many regarding the hardness of my head).
> Managing that risk involves being carefull where and how I ride, to
> minimise the risk of coming off the bicycle at speed - and minimizing
> the chance of serious injury by wearing a "brain bucket". My though
> there is "if you haven't got anything to fill it, you don't need it".
>
> After my daughter lost control of her bike in loose sand on a downhill
> curve (on concrete - due to a washout) and hit her head on a concrete
> retaining wall - severely cracking the helmet but walking away with
> only a slightly sore neck for her troubles - I'm a believer in those
> "foam hats".

Of course you are -- who would want to admit that they've been miserable
moms, unable to allow their children to develop sufficient motor skill to
fall without cracking their heads or hurting their necks, let alone being
"carefull where and how" to ride a bicycle.

[Duane]

Speaking of freak accidents, a friend is in a body cast right now with a
broken vertebrae. Riding in upstate New York another rider ran over a
branch in the road. It popped up and jammed in his front fork throwing him
over the bars. Shit happens.

One thing I haven't seen is a skinned knee. How do you skin your knee
falling off a bike? I've skinned my hip but never my knee.

--
duane

[Duane]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:54:55 +0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> stay away from facilities.
>
> That's "stay away from badly-designed, extremely-dangerous
> facilities".
>

Sure that's what I think as well. But I was talking about the guy that is
against any facilities. There are some decent ones that serve a purpose.

> The ride before last, I very nearly put myself into the path of a kid
> who came barrelling out of a sidewalk while I was checking the street
> for traffic. Fine chance there for both of us to be carried off in
> helicopters.
>
> The "facilities" being built all over town are sidewalks.
>

It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here. This doesn't mean people don't do
it though. My wife was his by an idiot riding on the sidewalk. Frank
would love this because she was walking.

--
duane

[Duane Hébert]

What are you, Frank's reinforcements? That was uncalled for.

[Jay Beattie]

Not to split hairs, but I was thinking of MHLs for adult bicyclists. Maybe we should take a poll. Is anyone promoting, endorsing or advocating for an adult MHL? (a law and not a club rule for racing, etc.) If we're going to get in to kids MHLs, then we're going to have to re-calibrate all the stats.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Dan]

Why be carefulll? Are there hazards?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Did I say I advocated the law? No. I said putting on a helmet on a
motorizd bicycle or motorcycle makes sense to me. That it takes a law
to make others do "the right thing" is another thing altogether.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:59:49 +0200, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

I'd make an awfully strange looking "mom" and I've done some
insanely stoopid things in my life - some of them on bicycles.

I've also been a competitive road rallye driver so I know something
about managing risks. I'm also president of our local recreational
aircraft association.

I have lost numerous friends and associates in the aviation field over
the years - only ONE in an aircraft related incident.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

For motorized cycles - definitely put me on the list. For
recreational riders of normal bicycles? No.

Good idea to wear one? Likely. Do I always wear one? No.
If riding off-road I would. In town I don't ride fast enough at over
60 to be terribly concerned.

[AMuzi]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>>> In my opinion it is the same with cycling. Put a lid on the kid.
>>>> Period. When he's over 18, or 21 - whenever he is legally
>>>> responsible for his own actions it's his choice.
>>>> That's how it is in Ontario.
>>>> Put a motor on 2 wheels and you wear a helmet - period.
>>>> That's the law here. To me it makes sense.

>>> "NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head. -- Jay Beattie"
>>> Comments, Jay?

>> Not to split hairs, but I was thinking of MHLs for adult bicyclists. Maybe we should take a poll. Is anyone promoting, endorsing or advocating for an adult MHL? (a law and not a club rule for racing, etc.) If we're going to get in to kids MHLs, then we're going to have to re-calibrate all the stats.

> For motorized cycles - definitely put me on the list. For
> recreational riders of normal bicycles? No.
> Good idea to wear one? Likely. Do I always wear one? No.
> If riding off-road I would. In town I don't ride fast enough at over
> 60 to be terribly concerned.

1st Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law
respecting...[among other fundamental rights] the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances". I can think of no
more dramatic a successful example than this, which stymied
MHL for motorcycles in Wisconsin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sd-XHD_GuM

The compelling slogan at the time was 'Let those who ride
decide' which, as in most things, is wise.



--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

To Frank that's advocating the law. He likes nice neat Boolean logic. If
it ain't white it's terribly black.
--
duane

[Duane]

I don't think so. Adults should be able to decide for themselves. As for
kids, I'm not sure either. It wouldn't affect me directly as my kid
already wears one.


--
duane

[Dan]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

>

<snip>

>
> You helmet enthusiasts seem to be a very reckless lot.
> In the entire lifetime of the London bike hire scheme, there have been
> a mere handful of serious injuries, and a single fatality.

Statistically speaking, that's an infinitely higher rate of
death than mine! (And to tell the truth, I can't recall
any *serious* injuries I've sustained riding a bicycle,
but that might just be because of all the concussions ;-)

<snip>

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:20:40 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Not to split hairs, but I was thinking of MHLs for adult bicyclists.

Ah. Maybe you should have said so.

> Maybe we should take a poll. Is anyone promoting, endorsing or advocating for an adult MHL? (a law and not a club rule for racing, etc.) If we're going to get in to kids MHLs, then we're going to have to re-calibrate all the stats.

... because a MHL for kids is somehow not a MHL?

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

There are a number of cases of pedestrians walking on the sidewalk who were struck and killed by a bicyclist who was riding on the sidewalk too. One of those deaths was fairly recent.

Cheers

[Dan]

Frank, too many parents don't do a very good job. Society naturally
steps up to *try* and fill the gaps. Faith Healing devotees are going
to prison. Yes, I know - the Nanny State and helicopter parenting and
all that... but do try to keep your idealogue thing in balance.

That story yesterday about a kid on a bike chasing down the Ice Cream
Man was really great. Great kid. Great story. Great outcome. Great
bike PR.

(What I'd like to know is what kind family life leads a little girl to
go with the Ice Cream Man.)

You seem to think you "got me" to admit that I'm a "helmet promoter",
because I acknoweldged that, sometimes, I remind my kids to wear a
helmet.

But doesn't the mere fact that they need reminding say something about
my brand of helmet promotion? I mean, if my kids - who each have their
very own helmet, who all know the law requires them to wear one, who
have a reasonably decent respect for the law in general - if they
(sometimes) go out to ride bike and hop on and get ready to go _without
even thinking about a helmet_ (it just doesn't occur to them)...

... Well, just how much of a hand-wringing DANGER! DANGER! helmeteer
could I be? (Unless, that is, I'm just also an ineffectual parent.)

The main reason I even remind them (and I fail to do so sometimes) is
that _their mother_ is a bit of a hand-wringer, which is understandable
nature. So rather than making a stand for Frank 'n' Phil and their
propaganda at the expense of my marriage, I will remind the kids (which
usually takes the form, "Are you going to wear a helmet?" - couching it
as a decision and choice) *often* accompanied by *my* spiel about how
helmets *may* help in case of accident, but that by no means assures
their safety, that an accident is not anticipated anyway, and that
other considerations are more important.

I am against MHL for anyone; but *less* against child MHL. We'd
like to assume that *someone* will be there when someone vulnerable
is not competent to take care of themselves. Society places all kinds
of restrictions on children. If a competent adult wants to risk
cirrhosis or cancer that's (unfortunately) their perogative. But
society prohibits providing alcohol and tobacco to kids. If kids
learn to ride safely and competently while wearing their mandated
helmet, then they're in much better postion to make a knowledge and
experience based assessment of the choice later in life.

And shall we examine those stats and studies now with an eye solely
on children (?)

[Sir Ridesalot]

Mr. Ruff has obviously never had an unexpected accident. Sometimes, no matter how careful and safety concious one is, something nasty happens to them.

I often wonder if those here who are so against any safety equipment for bicycling even have insurance. After all the odds of something happening to them is extremely small according to the statistics.

Cheers

[Joe Riel]

How about the mandatory helmet law for racers? The governing body may
be different, USCF instead of the state, but the effect is the same---if
you're going to race a bike, your going to wear a helmet.

--
Joe Riel

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> considered Fri, 12 Jul 2013
>
> 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, July 12, 2013 5:50:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:41:25 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > > The astonishing thing is that those statements and similar statements are treated as incontestable, even though they're presented as just personal opinion or anecdotes. Yet citations of data and analyses of data are attacked and mocked - at least, if they show bicycling in too good of a light. Sorry, but that bothers me. It's unscientific, illogical and anti-cycling.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > The citations to data are mocked because they're often stupid -- comparing gross numbers of pedestrian deaths with bicyclists deaths, per trip statistics with no explanation of trip, time or distance involved.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> OK, Jay, let me ask a serious question that I think you should be able to answer. In legal disputes, whatever the issue being contested: If an expert witness on one side of a case presents numbers taken from government data, collected by professionals in a field like public health, using metrics that are commonly used in countries around the world, are those data usually treated so disrespectfully? Is "That's just stupid" usually a successful rebuttal?
>
> >
>
> >We're not talking about data collection, we're talking about data use. For example: assume only fifty people died jumping off tall buildings last year, while five hundred died in car accidents. You would say, "so what's more dangerous, driving a car or jumping off a tall building? Clearly, it's driving a car!"
>
> >
>
> >Bad data use has been the cause of thousands of lawsuits, from EMF to breast implants. It takes years to finally sort it all out, but by then, most of the money has been paid. It's bad epidemiology that has lead to reforms in the Federal Evidence Code over the last 20 years to weed out junk science.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> ISTM that if you, or someone else wanting to "prove" that bicycling is dangerous, should be able to come up with a standard metric that doesn't collapse under simple scrutiny. So far the closest "winners" are raw injury count (which ignores that per-participant injuries are not high and that almost all injuries are minor), and fatalities-per-mile worse than motoring (which ignores that omitting super-safe auto freeway miles yields very similar rates for motoring and cycling. Remember that GAO study?)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> > Breathless arguments about gardening helmets..
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Oh, stuff it, Jay. I never called for gardening helmets. I pointed to a large survey that showed that cyclists are injured much less often than even gardeners, which got no cogent rebuttal, just mockery. The "gardening helmet" was Scharf's and Duane's schtick.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > ... partisan explanations of raw numbers, disregard of solid biomechanical evidence that helmets can help prevent certain injuries, bolstering by name-dropping, ignoring relevant experience of more specific co-horts, etc.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> And you've stated all that with the apparently deeply held conviction that the "solid biomechanical evidence" has incontestably proven your case - which, based on your phrasing, is at the moment something about the great value of bike helmets. Two points, then:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 1. The article I cited above had nothing at all to do with bike helmets. In fact, the word does not appear in the article. TBI was mentioned only briefly, showing that cycling's TBI rate is not high. The article was dealing with the (small) risks of cycling relative to other activities, and relative to cycling's benefits. (So please don't accuse _me_ of a helmet fixation!)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 2. If the "solid biomechanical evidence" really does settle the helmet question - whatever you imagine the specific question to be - then why, after 25 years of intense helmet promotion, is the question still so unsettled? Why are almost all bike share programs _not_ providing helmets, and seeing no problem? Why are national and international cycling organizations (even LAB) taking positions against MHLs? Whatever's convinced you has not convinced those _seriously_ studying helmet issues.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> , etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > The choir isn't even with you -- even though it may be singing your song when you're not around. In other words, I doubt anyone in this NG is running around yelling "danger, danger!"
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How about "My wife broke her arm, two friends broke wrists -- others in this group have broken hips and femurs and collar bones with no cars involved." How often do you say those things? And why?
>
> >
>
> >Because it's true. My wife also had her face stitched up, due to a crash in a race (crashed by another rider). The woman who edged her out for the state championship got killed by a car. My best riding buddy was hit and had shoulder surgery. His wife, who is a national class MTB rider, had a very bad fall and deep bruises recently -- one of her teammates was in a coma after a crash in a criterium a year or two ago. One of my work mates got hit while riding on the Spring Water Corridor and had a real big scalp laceration (he now wears a helmet). Everyone I ride with has been injured at one point or another. It's just the way it goes if you ride a lot, particularly if you ride on trails.

>
>
>
> You helmet enthusiasts seem to be a very reckless lot.
>
> In the entire lifetime of the London bike hire scheme, there have been
>
> a mere handful of serious injuries, and a single fatality.
>

> That's tens of thousands of riders, tens of thousands of bikes, and
>
> millions of miles, almost all in heavy city centre traffic, and almost
>
> entirely unhelmeted, to put it in context.
>
> >
>
> >And I don't "say this all the time" -- only when I get the Frank Fever, after you have gone on and on about how bicycling is no more dangerous that a yo-yo or playing Scrabble.
>
> >
>
> >I also get on the ski lift and talk to many others like myself who are held together by titanium rods, pins, screws, plates, etc., etc. Oddly enough, I see them on the lifts almost six months a year (that's our season here). We're all still out there. Same thing with my cycling companions -- cranking out the miles, far more than the "activists" and self-appointed safety experts.
>
> >
>
> >Simply recognizing past injuries or the potential for injury doesn't mean a person is condemning an activity or screaming "danger, danger!"

>
> >
>
> >NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head.
>
> >
>

> >-- Jay Beattie.

Is that the same London, England that has this:

http://criticalmasslondon.org.uk/images/Cycle_facts.pdf

England) –2,458 serious ... UK, 44% of the total bicycle fatalities (859 people) were riders ... London region, and over a third (34 per cent) in London and the...

Cheers

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joe Riel:

>though one club member
>picked up a flesh-eating bacterial infection from a minor fall.

Around here (about 23 miles West of Philadelphia PA USA) that happened
to a guy a few years back and he lost a leg.

Been carrying an itty-bitty squeeze bottle of Betadyne ever since....
dunno if it will help but...
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cl...@snyder.on.ca:

>Put a motor on 2 wheels and you wear a helmet - period.

>That's the law here. To me it makes sense. To many Americans it does
>not

I wore a helmet starting with my first moped through a Norton Atlas 750.

I even ruined a perfectly-good Bell helmet when some drunk side-swiped
me on my Yamaha YDS-6 and I did a swan dive into blacktop at 55 mph.

Having said that, I suspect the utility of helmet is actually much
greater for low-speed impacts than anything else. You go fast
enough/get hit hard enough, no helmet in the world is going to help.

"The rider was thrown into traffic by the door impact where she was run
over by a Transit Authority bus. The rider was not wearing a
helmet.".... as if the last statement were the least bit relevant.

I even had a close family member get his head ripped off - apparently by
the inertia of his helmet - when he went down at 110+ mph on his
motorcycle. Saw the accident investigator's pix: all the cervical
vertebrae were sill intact sticking up out of the body. Head was in
the helmet about 25 feet away - glasses still on his face... brains in a
little heap somewhere in-between.... kind of like a massive root canal.

OTOH, I strongly suspect that he'd be dead even without the helmet thing
because the guy riding next to him lived less than 30 minutes with no
apparent head trauma.

OTOOH, at very low speeds when you slap your melon on something pointy
like the edge of a curb or a babyhead, that helmet is going to help a
*lot*.

Had my own little helmet-at-speed attitude adjustment when I ate it on a
windsurfer in 30+ gusts wearing a helmet. Skipped across the water,
helmet caught the water, tweaked my neck, and I lay there on my back for
what seemed a very long time unable to feel anything in my arms/hands or
move same. I'll still wear a helmet when sailing in conditions where I
could eat the mast or the skeg of my board, but it's Gath-style helmet
that (hopefully) won't catch water.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:15:55 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Been carrying an itty-bitty squeeze bottle of Betadyne ever since....
>dunno if it will help but...

You might consider switching to cadexomer iodine or perhaps
chlorhexidine (a wound cleaner):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povidone-iodine#Alternative>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorhexidine>

"Antiseptics on Wounds: An Area of Controversy"
<http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456300> (7 pages)
On Pg 2, click on the "Table 1" link for results of numerous tests of
povidone iodine (Betadine). Not very impressive. Also, mixed in with
the various references were several that mentioned that washing and
cleaning the wound prior to applying an iodine compound was important.
If nothing else, use your water bottle (assuming it's full of water,
not something else).

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Dan]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> writes:

> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:15:55 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Been carrying an itty-bitty squeeze bottle of Betadyne ever since....
>>dunno if it will help but...
>
> You might consider switching to cadexomer iodine or perhaps
> chlorhexidine (a wound cleaner):
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Povidone-iodine#Alternative>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorhexidine>
>
> "Antiseptics on Wounds: An Area of Controversy"
> <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456300> (7 pages)
> On Pg 2, click on the "Table 1" link for results of numerous tests of
> povidone iodine (Betadine). Not very impressive. Also, mixed in with
> the various references were several that mentioned that washing and
> cleaning the wound prior to applying an iodine compound was important.
> If nothing else, use your water bottle (assuming it's full of water,
> not something else).
>

That's one reason I carry two bottles and always try to have more
water than I need to drink.

[Jay Beattie]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 9:36:08 AM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> considered Fri, 12 Jul 2013

<snip>

> You helmet enthusiasts seem to be a very reckless lot.
>
> In the entire lifetime of the London bike hire scheme, there have been
>
> a mere handful of serious injuries, and a single fatality.
>
> That's tens of thousands of riders, tens of thousands of bikes, and
>
> millions of miles, almost all in heavy city centre traffic, and almost
>
> entirely unhelmeted, to put it in context.
>

Is that London, England?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-pedestrian-deaths-and-cycle-injuries-soar-7899270.html

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:51:57 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
>
> I am against MHL for anyone; but *less* against child MHL.

OK.

> We'd
>
> like to assume that *someone* will be there when someone vulnerable
>
> is not competent to take care of themselves. Society places all kinds
>
> of restrictions on children. If a competent adult wants to risk
>
> cirrhosis or cancer that's (unfortunately) their perogative. But
>
> society prohibits providing alcohol and tobacco to kids.

An obvious difference, in my mind, is that there is no dispute at all (AFAIK) that alcohol and tobacco are a net harm to kids. Nobody sane claims they are beneficial.

OTOH, every study I've ever seen on the topic claims that riding a bike is a very strong net benefit. (Does anyone here doubt that? Do you wish you had not learned to ride when you were a child?) Thus, by discouraging kids riding - which MHLs certainly do - the MHL is itself likely to cause net harm. To me, that's objectionable. Laws should not cause net harm.

And if a particular parent happens to study this issue in great detail and decide it's better to let his kid ride without a helmet, why should his decision be trumped by a gaggle of lawmakers who voted based on little research and false testimony like "75% of deaths are due to TBI! And helmets prevent 85%!!"?

There are other objections, of course, which we could discuss. But those are sufficient in my mind.

Incidentally, what we have now in some communities is the assumption that child services should be called for any perceived risk involving a kid and a bike. I mentioned the lawyer who was yelled at and threatened ("I'm going to call the cops!") for being in a left turn lane with his kid on the bike. I also have a friend who was yelled at by multiple adults for letting his kids ride without helmets on a lightly used rail-trail. This in a community with no MHL at all.

Now: Since so many people are turned off by helmet discussions, can we return to the risks of cycling relative to other activities, and relative to its benefits?

- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

These so called libertarians that don't want the courts telling them what
to do certainly don't seem to have any issue telling parents how to raise
their children.
--
duane

[Duane]

My wife was hit coming out of her office in Ottawa.
--
duane

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> Mr. Ruff has obviously never had an unexpected accident. Sometimes, no matter how careful and safety concious one is, something nasty happens to them.

But only on bikes?

Fatal head injuries per year in the U.S.: Roughly 55,000.

Fatal head injuries on bikes per year in the U.S.: Roughly 330.

(If you want to discuss per-mile, per-trip, etc., first read the article at the top of the thread.)

> I often wonder if those here who are so against any safety equipment for bicycling even have insurance. After all the odds of something happening to them is extremely small according to the statistics.

Some insurance makes sense, some doesn't. I'm now receiving monthly advertisements for insurance on the phone lines, electrical lines and water pipes on my property. They're selling very aggressively. Now why would they do that?

Medical insurance in the U.S. is a very special case. Again, those from other countries may be surprised, but the main benefit from medical insurance may not be coverage for catastrophic illness or injury, although that's very beneficial if needed. The main benefit is usually that paying one's premium (effectively, "dues") makes you part of the insurance "club," so to speak. And insurance companies negotiate with hospitals, doctors, dentists, etc. for much lower rates than those paid by uninsured individuals.

So, for example, a treatment that costs $100 on the open market may be charged only $60 for members of an insurance group. And those members may have a "co-pay" (out of pocket expense) of only $10, with the insurance company picking up the remaining $50.

At times, I've paid the uninsured costs for things like eyeglasses. It's _way_ cheaper to buy into the "prescription eyewear" coverage than to buy, uninsured, on the open market.

Free enterprise is complicated. And insurance is far more complicated than just "sharing the risk," its original premise.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 3:01:15 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
>
>
> How about the mandatory helmet law for racers? The governing body may
>
> be different, USCF instead of the state, but the effect is the same---if
>
> you're going to race a bike, your going to wear a helmet.

I'd say that doesn't qualify as a law. It's a rule, more akin to "Sorry, sir, if you're to dine here, a necktie is required." Private clubs can make pretty much any rule they like.

(I recall a rumour that the Tour de France once required white socks on every rider. Don't know if it's true.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

You mean there are people in Britain, too, who love to cite "Danger! Danger!" numbers about cycling? Why, I'm shocked!

But where are the comparisons with other modes of transport, to put the cycling numbers in comparison?

Oh wait - they _do_ have some: like "[only] 13 of 121 children killed ... were cyclists."

And hmm: "Pedestrians fare far worse: • 10,935 pedestrians have lost their lives since 1994 • 122,053 have been seriously injured in the same period - source- National Office of Statistics"

Isn't that odd? Even though they're hand-wringing regarding cycling, they say walking is worse!

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Both your cited cases are anecdotes and you've posted many times against using anecdotes as evidence.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Sometimes Frank, I think you are a dithering idiot or on some kind of drug that affects your thinking because of the way you continually twist what people say. You twist what people post just so you can promote your own agenda a common one that seems to be, "If you don't agree with me then you're shouting DANGER! DANGER!" when in fact no one is stating that at all.

Gads.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Yet you constantly scoff at anyone who takes any step to insure their own grater safety whilst bicycling.

[Frank Krygowski]

Interesting. 77 pedestrians, vs. only 16 cyclists.

And of the cyclists, nine of them felt safe alongside an HGV at its curbside blind spot. A place that books like _Cyclecraft_ and the education program based on it tell you to strictly avoid. Heeding that one instruction could have reduced the cycling fatality count by 56%.

Should people get instruction in how to ride safely and legally?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Gads, indeed! You posted a link to some "dangers of bicycling" numbers. From the same document, I highlighted the "but other modes are worse" data. And for that you use the word "idiot"?

If you didn't want the numbers discussed, why on earth did you post the link?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Absolutely false! I've repeatedly advocated riding while sober; and riding on the proper side of the road; and using lights at night; and using a lane position appropriate for conditions; avoiding badly designed bike facilities; avoiding door zones; as well planning ahead and anticipating possible hazards, learning emergency maneuvers, and many other techniques.

Try to keep up, please. I may disagree with your favorite safety strategies, but that's a far cry from eschewing "any steps."

- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Ruff has obviously never had an unexpected accident. Sometimes, no matter how careful and safety concious one is, something nasty happens to them.
>
> But only on bikes?
>
> Fatal head injuries per year in the U.S.: Roughly 55,000.
>
> Fatal head injuries on bikes per year in the U.S.: Roughly 330.
>
> (If you want to discuss per-mile, per-trip, etc., first read the article at the top of the thread.)
>
>> I often wonder if those here who are so against any safety equipment for bicycling even have insurance. After all the odds of something happening to them is extremely small according to the statistics.
>
> Some insurance makes sense, some doesn't. I'm now receiving monthly advertisements for insurance on the phone lines, electrical lines and water pipes on my property. They're selling very aggressively. Now why would they do that?
>
> Medical insurance in the U.S. is a very special case. Again, those
> from other countries may be surprised, but the main benefit from
> medical insurance may not be coverage for catastrophic illness or
> injury, although that's very beneficial if needed. The main benefit
> is usually that paying one's premium (effectively, "dues") makes you
> part of the insurance "club," so to speak. And insurance companies
> negotiate with hospitals, doctors, dentists, etc. for much lower rates
> than those paid by uninsured individuals.

That, in my opinion, is a significant problem with health care in the
US. Rather than the $100 to $60 ratio that your example uses, I believe
that the actual rate difference between what an uninsured person
attempting to pay for a procedure and what a medical provider actually
receives, total, from an insurance company and patient, is closer to 3
to 1.

--
Joe Riel

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

And again, what PERCENTAGE of Britts ride - and how much? Women 27
miles per year on average, Men 100 miles per year. according to the
cited article. And what was the percentage ofBritts that ride????
Well, apparently less than 2% of journies are by bike. If I remember
correctly it was VERY low. So the raw numbers need some serious
weighting in order for them to mean or say anything AT ALL.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I call BULLSHIT Frank! Many times I've posted an incident, and others have posted incidents, and you either disparage them, mock them, say the person is a scaredy cat or is is shouting DANGER DANGER, or you simply dismiss their claims. Then you have the gall to state that you never did any of that.

Cheerio old chap

[AMuzi]

If I recall, that was true for France and UCI as well.

The ABL (predecessor to USCF) adamantly required black
shorts and white sox with specified lengths and I saw riders
DQ for both.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[James]

On 14/07/13 00:45, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 20:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 12, 2013 11:14:40 PM UTC-4, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion it is the same with cycling. Put a lid on the kid.
>>>
>>> Period. When he's over 18, or 21 - whenever he is legally
>>>
>>> responsible for his own actions it's his choice.
>>>
>>> That's how it is in Ontario.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Put a motor on 2 wheels and you wear a helmet - period.
>>>
>>> That's the law here. To me it makes sense.
>>

>> "NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR A MHL. I REPEAT . . . NO ONE. That is just some misconception you can't get out of your head. -- Jay Beattie"
>>

>> Comments, Jay?
>>
> Did I say I advocated the law? No. I said putting on a helmet on a
> motorizd bicycle or motorcycle makes sense to me. That it takes a law
> to make others do "the right thing" is another thing altogether.
>

Frank likes to read in to what others wrote, what he would like them to
have written, so he can argue against what he dreamed they wrote. Make
sense?

--
JS

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 20:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:02:17 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Why the $%^& are you two so committed to posting zillions of unnecessary
blank lines?


--
Wes Groleau

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
But I'm not so sure about the universe.”
— Albert Einstein

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 17:16, Jay Beattie wrote:
> <snip>

THANK YOU !

--
Wes Groleau

“If it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
a hundred of us could be working with shovels”
“Yeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 13:09, Duane wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> Not to split hairs, but I was thinking of MHLs for adult bicyclists.
>> Maybe we should take a poll. Is anyone promoting, endorsing or
>> advocating for an adult MHL? (a law and not a club rule for racing, etc.)
>> If we're going to get in to kids MHLs, then we're going to have to
>> re-calibrate all the stats.
>
> I don't think so. Adults should be able to decide for themselves. As for
> kids, I'm not sure either. It wouldn't affect me directly as my kid
> already wears one.

MHLs for children should be imposed or not by their parents.


--
Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 15:01, Joe Riel wrote:
> How about the mandatory helmet law for racers? The governing body may
> be different, USCF instead of the state, but the effect is the same---if
> you're going to race a bike, your going to wear a helmet.

Well, that raises a partially related question.

During such a race, motorists are forced to choose a different route.

But what about other bikers? Suppose I want to go somewhere, the best
route is hosting a race, and I don't give a rodent's posterior for
whether or not some organization records how fast I get there?
(Especially not when they want me to pay fifty bucks to get my name in
print.)

--
Wes Groleau

There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 19:44, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> So, for example, a treatment that costs $100 on the open market may be charged only $60 for members of an insurance group. And those members may have a "co-pay" (out of pocket expense) of only $10, with the insurance company picking up the remaining $50.

And why do we bill $100 ? Because if we bill $60, we'll get $30 from
the insured, and nothing from those who can't afford insurance (or think
they can't).

So the insured save money (or do they after the premiums?) and the
uninsured either pay more or get hassled for what they can't afford.

My insurance claims to pay "reasonable and customary" amounts for dental
procedures. But NO dentist in the county will agree to their contract.
So, obviously the amounts they offer are not customary, though you
could argue about "reasonable."

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 01:23, Dan wrote:
> And absolute safety is impossible, anyway. Safe is an entirely
> relative concept, boiling down in practice to nothing more than
> acceptable risk and due care. Come to think of it, whether or

But clearly, lying in bed with a very thick quilt over you
is safer than riding a bicycle!

--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[Wes Groleau]

On 07-13-2013 06:19, Duane wrote:
> It's illegal to ride on sidewalks here. This doesn't mean people don't do
> it though. My wife was his by an idiot riding on the sidewalk. Frank
> would love this because she was walking.

Here, too. Yet we spend thousands of dollars to widen the sidewalks in
some areas explicitly to make them "bicycle friendly" while not changing
the law that makes using them a (unenforced) violation.

And even though I know the law isn't enforced, sometimes I obey it
anyway because the engineers didn't think to do anything with the
three-inch bump you have to cross to get into the "bike bath."

--
Wes Groleau

------
“The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
they know that most men can see better than they can think.”
— James Dobson

[James]

On 14/07/13 12:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 07-13-2013 01:23, Dan wrote:
>> And absolute safety is impossible, anyway. Safe is an entirely
>> relative concept, boiling down in practice to nothing more than
>> acceptable risk and due care. Come to think of it, whether or
>
> But clearly, lying in bed with a very thick quilt over you
> is safer than riding a bicycle!
>

I'm sure many people die lying in bed. I don't think the thick quilt
will change that. We should sleep sitting up, or not sleep at all.
People die in their sleep you know. It's terribly dangerous. Look at
the statistics!

--
JS

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 5:16:43 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 9:36:08 AM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>> > Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> considered Fri, 12 Jul 2013
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You helmet enthusiasts seem to be a very reckless lot.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In the entire lifetime of the London bike hire scheme, there have been
>>
>> >
>>
>> > a mere handful of serious injuries, and a single fatality.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > That's tens of thousands of riders, tens of thousands of bikes, and
>>
>> >
>>
>> > millions of miles, almost all in heavy city centre traffic, and almost
>>
>> >
>>
>> > entirely unhelmeted, to put it in context.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that London, England?
>>
>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-pedestrian-deaths-and-cycle-injuries-soar-7899270.html
>
> Interesting. 77 pedestrians, vs. only 16 cyclists.
>
> And of the cyclists, nine of them felt safe alongside an HGV at its curbside blind spot.
>

They "felt safe"? I was going to go read they were all interviewed
to report feeling safe and... wait a sec' (haven't had my coffee yet)
- they *oculdn't* have been interviewed; they're dead!

(I guess you mean they must have felt safe enough to go there, but
again - you're "paraphrasing" / characterizing the facts - making
them up - with that inverse wave of your argument in order to argue
against it.)

> A place that books like _Cyclecraft_ and the education program based on it tell you to strictly avoid. Heeding that one instruction could have reduced the cycling fatality count by 56%.
>

No, not getting killed *anywhere* would have reduced that fatality
count by 56%. You don't know what didn't happen.

I'm not defending whatever an HGV blind spot is; certainly not
defending riding blithely into traffic - just pointing out your
strawman blame game.

> Should people get instruction in how to ride safely and legally?
>

Depends on whether or not it's a worthwhile use of their time.
Should *everyone* wear a helmet because *someone* might crack
their skull open? (Hand-wringing "if only a single life can
be saved... !")

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:51:57 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
>>
>> I am against MHL for anyone; but *less* against child MHL.
>
> OK.
>
>> We'd
>>
>> like to assume that *someone* will be there when someone vulnerable
>>
>> is not competent to take care of themselves. Society places all kinds
>>
>> of restrictions on children. If a competent adult wants to risk
>>
>> cirrhosis or cancer that's (unfortunately) their perogative. But
>>
>> society prohibits providing alcohol and tobacco to kids.
>
> An obvious difference, in my mind, is that there is no dispute at all (AFAIK) that alcohol and tobacco are a net harm to kids. Nobody sane claims they are beneficial.
>

The point was what I said: "Society places all kinds of restrictions
on children." There are plenty of fuzzier ones; people tend to err
on the side of caution in such things. That was just an example of
choice for adults that is not extended to kids.

And MHL's do not deprive anyone of the main benefits (just that "wind
in your hair" thing).

> OTOH, every study I've ever seen on the topic claims that riding a bike is a very strong net benefit. (Does anyone here doubt that? Do you wish you had not learned to ride when you were a child?) Thus, by discouraging kids riding - which MHLs certainly do - the MHL is itself likely to cause net harm. To me, that's objectionable. Laws should not cause net harm.
>

"you're an idiot, krygoowski"

> And if a particular parent happens to study this issue in great detail and decide it's better to let his kid ride without a helmet, why should his decision be trumped by a gaggle of lawmakers who voted based on little research and false testimony like "75% of deaths are due to TBI! And helmets prevent 85%!!"?
>

What I said: "A lot of parents don't do a very good job." (It takes
a village.) And it doesn't trump the parent anyway - not until Child
Protective Services steps in and takes the kids away.

> There are other objections, of course, which we could discuss. But those are sufficient in my mind.
>

About discussion: I do want to thank you for what I perceive as an
effort to discuss more... (I think you put it as) "cooperatively".
(I would say the discussion has been a touch more "reasonable".)

(No offense to that "you're and idiot" thing, I hope ;-), but come
on - just look at what you were saying in that paragraph.)

> Incidentally, what we have now in some communities is the assumption that child services should be called for any perceived risk involving a kid and a bike. I mentioned the lawyer who was yelled at and threatened ("I'm going to call the cops!") for being in a left turn lane with his kid on the bike. I also have a friend who was yelled at by multiple adults for letting his kids ride without helmets on a lightly used rail-trail. This in a community with no MHL at all.
>

And I might also disappear into a hole somewhere in Czechoslovakia.
There is no absolute freedom; we just hope for balance and, in the
end, reasonableness.

> Now: Since so many people are turned off by helmet discussions, can we return to the risks of cycling relative to other activities, and relative to its benefits?
>

But that only ever comes up in the context of your discounting the
"need" for bicycle helmets. That context did you have in mind now?
Give up human-powered flight and ride a bike instead?

I said my piece, but would *you* please quit with the walking
helmets already!

[Dan]

And the personal choice to wear a helmet is even *further* from
simply sharing the statistical risk pool.

Get it now?

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 3:01:15 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
>>
>>
>> How about the mandatory helmet law for racers? The governing body may
>>
>> be different, USCF instead of the state, but the effect is the same---if
>>
>> you're going to race a bike, your going to wear a helmet.
>
> I'd say that doesn't qualify as a law. It's a rule, more akin to "Sorry, sir, if you're to dine here, a necktie is required." Private clubs can make pretty much any rule they like.
>

I'd *sort* of agree, but it does kind of defacto exclude someone
from participation. Ask Obree.

> (I recall a rumour that the Tour de France once required white socks on every rider. Don't know if it's true.)
>

Did they black flag them off the track otherwise? 'Cause if not
I'm just the kind of rebel that would wear blue anyway and just
give back the trophy at podium. Still won. Kinda like a little
excitement after the race anyway... for that matter even getting
kicked out of the race for the color of my socks might be cool.

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>

>
> Oh wait - they _do_ have some: like "[only] 13 of 121 children killed ... were cyclists."
>

The "only" is yours, I presume. That's some cold, hard statistical
analysis, man.

<snip>

[datakoll]

00000000

REPEATED ELECTRONS ARE INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE POSTERS bq

why are these riders dithering abt what Krygoski thinks ?

[Dan]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:

> On Saturday, July 13, 2013 7:57:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > >>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>

(Are you guys all using the new Google Groups on Windows 7?)

>
>> >
>>
>> > > >> , etc., etc. The push back is not anti-cycling, its anti-Frank.

(hear, hear)

>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean there are people in Britain, too, who love to cite "Danger! Danger!" numbers about cycling? Why, I'm shocked!
>>
>>
>>
>> But where are the comparisons with other modes of transport, to put the cycling numbers in comparison?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh wait - they _do_ have some: like "[only] 13 of 121 children killed ... were cyclists."
>>
>>
>>
>> And hmm: "Pedestrians fare far worse: • 10,935 pedestrians have lost their lives since 1994 • 122,053 have been seriously injured in the same period - source- National Office of Statistics"
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't that odd? Even though they're hand-wringing regarding cycling, they say walking is worse!
>>
>>
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Yet you constantly scoff at anyone who takes any step to insure their own grater safety whilst bicycling.
>

It's his smarmy MO for discounting the inherent danger. That's
right, I said, "inherent danger". (Don't make me re-post the
dictionary definition of "danger" again.)

People are not perfect. Mistakes *will* be made. It would be
great if we can reduce the ones that result in bad outcomes, but
it's still going to happen. Therefor, inherent danger.

(Note that I don't say "terrible danger". My opinion is that
bicycling is not terribly dangerous. But the *fact* that bicycling
comes with inherent danger is not just my opinion.)

What's especially unfortunate is that it's often the most vulnerable
- those least able to protect themselves - who suffer... but, I guess
that's nature, right?

I'm all for opportunities for education to free Aunt Bea from the
fear that keeps her from the light, but let's acknowledge the
reason education is needed, and don't "pretend" it will make
everything all right - any more than a mere protective headpiece.