Car Accident - Page 4

u missed one. So you & speedfreak *are* married.

Phil Allison <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1g1dp1j.8v3ivb186xpfrN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
>
> > hehe
>
> ** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.
>
>
> > Gee, great points u have there..
>
>
> ** So you top posted to avoid them.
>
>
> > Nothing like an intelligent debate!
>
>
> ** When have you ever had one ??????
>
>
> > I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.
>
>
> ** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.
>
>
> > Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
>
>
>
> ** You could not disturb a sick cat.
>
>
>
> ........... Phil

I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for their POV or is it all just anecdotal
"I read somewhere" stuff.

Pete

ocean1@removeiinet.net.au (Gary K) wrote in message
news:<1g1dkte.f7mo7417jit50N%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au>...
> Dave Proctor <david@spambait.proctor.net> wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol, ocean1@removeiinet.net.au (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly
> > >less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at
> > >night as any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than
> > >a car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant you, but a lot more than
> > some) I am more than aware of the potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely
> > "cyclist aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without lights at night) and nearly
> > collected at least three others, also at night. It is quite often difficult to make out th
> > cyclist, particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or non-existent.
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How many are dead at the end
> of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of injury per hour exposure) than
driving a car.

The likelihood of injury depends on the likelihood of an accident and the likelihood of an injury
conditioned on an accident occurring. Even if the likelihood of an accident is the same for a
cyclist and motorist (perhaps due to equal skill and luck), the cyclist is more likely to be injured
as a result of an accident than the motorist...

I might also add that cyclists are more difficult to see on the road than a car, particularly at
night. Even with headlights, it is more difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming cyclist in the
same way as it more difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming car that has only one functioning
headlight. More difficult - yes, impossible - no. Road users still have to drive with due care and
attention, which gets back to the original poster...

The story reads as if the motorist did not drive with due care and attention, the result of which
was a collision that injured a cyclist and damaged his bike.

Having consulted to an insurance company, the injured cyclist serves a writ on the driver of the
car, not the insurer. When you sue someone, they call on their insurer to defend them or indemnify
them. The insurer provides indemnity to the driver or not as it decides its liability. In my
experience, the insurer will obtain legal advice as to whether (a) the insured person is liable, or
is likely to be found liable by a court; and (b) whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the
insured. If the answer to (a) is no, then suing the driver directly is unlikely to succeed. If the
answer to (a) is yes and (b) is no, then you will have to sue the driver directly and they are
likely to have to pay you. This could happen if the insurer refuses cover because, say, the driver
was intoxicated at the time of the accident. If the answer to both parts is yes, then you should get
a speedy resolution in the form of a cheque from the insurer.

Sometimes the liability is split between the insured and the plaintiff with the proportions
determined by whose actions contributed the most to the accident. If the car failed right of way and
the cyclist was complying with all of the rules of the road, then I believe the liability would be
100/0 on the driver's side.

Just 2 cents. Ritch

PS. I'm sure that qualified legal persons will probably say this is all rubbish.

ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
: injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.
:

I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard... Has anyone actually done any
research into Cycling deaths vs driving deaths in an urban/sub-urban environment per hour of
activity. I have never been convinced one way or other. Everyone seems to be talking about accidents
where there are multiple cars involved... does anyone consider the numerous high speed accidents
involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete blocks and the like which seem to be a favourite of
young males.

Pete

John Doe <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsBA9b.105419$bo1.53547@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving deaths in an urban/sub-urban
> environment per hour of activity.

Corse they have.

> I have never been convinced one way or other.

Your problem.

> Everyone seems to be talking about accidents where there are multiple cars involved... does anyone
> consider the numerous high speed accidents involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete blocks and
> the like which seem to be a favourite of young males.

Corse they do, particularly with highway fatalitys.

"John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsBA9b.105419$bo1.53547@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> : ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of injury per hour exposure)
> : than driving a car.
> :>
> I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
deaths in an
> urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

** Wrong analysis.

You might as well research how many folk get their heads bitten off by putting them in a
lion's mouth - find it is exceedingly few and then insanely conclude that the activity is
a safe one.

........... Phil

"Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1g1a3mf.hl6939k8kmbmN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
> Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly less
> risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as
> any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a car" is
> doomed to fail for them.
>
<...>

Just to add to this part of the thread, and add in some actual statistics.

From
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....ight=0,bicycle
(national 1992)

59% of people drive .6% of people ride a motorcycle or scooter 2% of people ride a bike

From (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle) (National fatality statistics)

46% of road fatalities are from car drivers 10% of road fatalities are from motorcyclists 2% of road
fatalities are from cyclists

From (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle) (National hospitalisation statistics)

42% of road hospitalisations are from car drivers 12% of road hospitalisations are from
motorcyclists 5% of road hospitalisations are from cyclists

So, if car driving, motorcycling and cycling had exact the same number of people on the road (appart
from the fact that less car drivers would dramatically reduce the incident of cycling and
motorcycling injuries), you could expect per 100 road user deaths (of these three vehicle types),
there would be:

4.3 car driver deaths
5.5 motorcycle deaths
6.2 cycling deaths

Putting cycling deaths on par with car deaths.

Similarly, there would be:

7.1 car driver hospitalisations
8.2 motorcyclist hospitalations
9.7 cyclist hospitalations

Putting cyclists over three times more likely on average to sustain an injury requiring
hospitalisation.

Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy bastard, and average life
expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the
cyclist ;-)

All the best,

Tim

"Tim Jones" <tall_man_tim_nospamtoday@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f67120a$0$23607$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Gary K" <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1g1a3mf.hl6939k8kmbmN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
> > Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity with slightly
> > less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at
> > night as any who drives at night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than
> > a car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> <...>
>
> Just to add to this part of the thread, and add in some actual statistics.
>
> From http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....&Highlight=0,-
> bicycle (national 1992)
>
> 59% of people drive .6% of people ride a motorcycle or scooter 2% of people ride a bike
>
> From (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....569D000164396?
> Open&Highlight=0,bicycle) (National fatality statistics)
>
> 46% of road fatalities are from car drivers 10% of road fatalities are from motorcyclists 2% of
> road fatalities are from cyclists
>
> From (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....569D000164396?
> Open&Highlight=0,bicycle) (National hospitalisation statistics)
>
> 42% of road hospitalisations are from car drivers 12% of road hospitalisations are from
> motorcyclists 5% of road hospitalisations are from cyclists
>
> So, if car driving, motorcycling and cycling had exact the same number of people on the road
> (appart from the fact that less car drivers would dramatically reduce the incident of cycling and
> motorcycling injuries), you could expect per 100 road user deaths (of these three vehicle types),
> there would be:
>
> 4.3 car driver deaths
> 90.5 motorcycle deaths
> 5.2 cycling deaths
>
> Putting cycling deaths on par with car deaths.

Trouble is that thats mindlessly superficial when the bulk of the car deaths are outside built up
areas and the bulk of the cycling deaths arent.

And when you factor in the quite different distances travelled by bike and car within built
up areas...

> Similarly, there would be:

> 3.1 car driver hospitalisations
> 86.2 motorcyclist hospitalations
> 10.7 cyclist hospitalations

> Putting cyclists over three times more likely on average to sustain an injury requiring
> hospitalisation.

Yeah, its rather silly concentrating on just deaths.

> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy bastard, and average life
> expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the
> cyclist ;-)

Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily get that effect with joggers and non joggers
for example.

> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
: > bastard, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which (opinion only) would be
: > weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
:
: Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily get that effect with joggers and non
: joggers for example.
:

"A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly the reduction in the number of deaths due to
heart attack in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy each week in identified physical
activity (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar liar pants on fire" type of
uneducated argument then here is just a small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is
quite a long read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have to be. Its primary
purpose was to discover the pros and cons from using cycling as a mode of transport on health
benefits. The reason I went looking was because I heard the results of a study about 6 months ago
that indicated the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer. I wish I had only written down
the reference. I will know better for next time. However, I could not find in this study this sort
of metric. On the other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.

If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study here.
http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.a...bout?OpenAbout

"Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity but very few people consider the consequences
of their sedentary lifestyle on health. The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as a result
of cycling is around .005 per 100 hours; this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash, .11
for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."

One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial road. Looking at my age
group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
(does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment). Now am I going to stop my sons playing
soccer or football. Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.

> I have never been convinced one way or other.
:
: Your problem.
:

Not my problem. Dont really care. Just notice that a lot of people believe common perception is
fact. Like chickens are fed hormones... 80% of the population believe that myth despite it being
banned since the 60's and the industry is heavily audited. Will be riding non the less. I also swim
in the open ocean without shark mesh or shark deterrent. I also go snow boarding (high rate of
injury) and skiing. I also water ski. If I get killed.. well at least I have enjoyed myself.

I suppose I could wrap myself up in a false sense of security and die of boredom.

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
: deaths in an
: > urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

: ** Wrong analysis.

I think you have made the wrong analysis of what I was saying. I said PER HOUR of activity. Like
deaths per 10000 hours of riding a bike in the same environment as 10000 hours of driving a car.
That is apples with apples.

Your correct analogy of the very few putting heads in lions mouths is indeed correct but your should
have read what I asked properly by arguing something completely different. Personally, that is
without any evidence but just perception I guess it would be safer driving a car. Especially the way
I drive. Bottom line is... Dont care. I enjoy participating in more than ping pong sports.

> I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for their POV or is it all just
> anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting. Some previous efforts from the archive:

http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):

Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue from an informed perspective rather
than just trading opinions.

Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):

Cyclists: 0.41 Pedestrians: 0.80 MV occupants: 0.46 Motorcyclists: 7.66

Number of deaths from head injury per million hours (Vicroads 1990 and Federal Office of Road
Safety 1992):

Cyclists: 0.19 Pedestrians: 0.34 MV occupants: 0.17 Motorcyclists: 2.9

Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours (above, plus Queensland Health Department)

Cyclists: 2.2 Pedestrians: 2.0 MV occupants: 1.6 Motorcyclists:18.0

And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):

There are biases in all stats. And it depends what you're comparing.

Say we're comparing cycle commuting with car commuting. A significant bias will be the fact that
more fatal car crashes occur on rural roads than on urban roads (roughly a factor of 2:1, from
memory). Allowing that total vehicle occupant-hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1 (don't know the
real number), then car commuting would be only about half as dangerous as the average car occupancy
risk stats you quoted. And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess), that would make
cycle commuting about twice as dangerous as car commuting.

Then there's a travel-time bias. A recent Brisbane study showed that cycle commuting was on average
about 25% slower than car commuting. Hence the exposure time commuting on the bike is a bit longer,
so in terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle commuting being about 2.5 times as
dangerous as car commuting.

The surprising thing, I guess, is that even after correcting for the various biases as carefully as
possible, cycle commuting still doesn't come out all that dangerous, compared with lots of other
things we do.

Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring the cardio- vascular risk of a sedentary
lifestyle. If you cycle-commute, that, by itself is more than enough exercise to define you as
non-sedentary, from a cardiologist's viewpoint. If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary (ie most
office workers), and you're also overweight and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE. At least 10
times any commuting road trauma risk.

John Doe <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w6N9b.107221$bo1.91899@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy bastard, and average life
>>> expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the
>>> cyclist ;-)

>> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily get that effect with joggers and non
>> joggers for example.

> "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly the reduction in the number of deaths due
> to heart attack in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy each week in identified
> physical activity (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others have come to difference conclusions on
that question.

And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

> For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar liar pants on fire" type of
> uneducated argument then here is just a small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is
> quite a long read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have to be. Its primary
> purpose was to discover the pros and cons from using cycling as a mode of transport on health
> benefits.

And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the general question of exercise and health benefits.

> The reason I went looking was because I heard the results of a study about 6 months ago that
> indicated the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.

Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

> I wish I had only written down the reference. I will know better for next time.

If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific journal, it would be easy enough to find.
Bet it didnt.

> However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the other hand it makes no mistake
> that it does make a difference.

What matters is how much of a difference it makes, particularly when that particular activity
involves a higher risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

Thats always been the problem with team sports for example. They certainly do have some health
benefits BUT they also have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

> If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study here.
> http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.a...bout?OpenAbout

> "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity

Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.

> but very few people consider the consequences of their sedentary lifestyle on health.

Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one obvious alternative to bike
commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

> The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100
> hours; this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash, .11 for basketball and netball and
> 0.06 for soccer."

Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.

Utterly bogus.

> One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial road.

Should also include dedicated bikeways.

> Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases
> to 0.015 accidents (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).

Then its stupidly superficial.

> Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football. Not likely because its fun and I
> believe overall it is good for them.

Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether there is a substantial increased risk of
significant injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

Dedicated bikeways (in Brisbane/Logan) or at least paths that have been built for cycling by local
councils (eg. Logan City) are often occupied by pedestrians, are often narrow at points, especially
corners, and are not often built as straight as roads for equal distances, and don't usually have
good lighting (for night riding). For these reasons it is not usually safe to travel by bicycle on
these paths at speeds equal to that safely attainable by bicycle on roads.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bk8f9l$qh6pn$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> John Doe <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w6N9b.107221$bo1.91899@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy bastard, and average life
> >>> expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the
> >>> cyclist ;-)
>
> >> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily get that effect with joggers and non
> >> joggers for example.
>
> > "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly the reduction in the number of deaths
> > due to heart attack in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy each week in
> > identified physical activity (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
>
> Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others have come to difference conclusions
> on that question.
>
> And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
>
> > For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar liar pants on fire" type of
> > uneducated argument then here is just a small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is
> > quite a long read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have to be. Its
> > primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons from using cycling as a mode of transport on
> > health benefits.
>
> And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the general question of exercise and health
> benefits.
>
> > The reason I went looking was because I heard the results of a study about 6 months ago that
> > indicated the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
>
> Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
>
> > I wish I had only written down the reference. I will know better for next time.
>
> If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific journal, it would be easy enough to find.
> Bet it didnt.
>
> > However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the other hand it makes no
> > mistake that it does make a difference.
>
> What matters is how much of a difference it makes, particularly when that particular activity
> involves a higher risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
>
> Thats always been the problem with team sports for example. They certainly do have some health
> benefits BUT they also have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
>
> > If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full
study here.
> > http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.a...bout?OpenAbout
>
> > "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity
>
> Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.
>
> > but very few people consider the consequences of their sedentary lifestyle on health.
>
> Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one obvious alternative to bike
> commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
>
> > The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100
> > hours; this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash, .11 for basketball and netball and
> > 0.06 for soccer."
>
> Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
>
> Utterly bogus.
>
> > One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial road.
>
> Should also include dedicated bikeways.
>
> > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases
> > to 0.015 accidents (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
>
> Then its stupidly superficial.
>
> > Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football. Not likely because its fun and I
> > believe overall it is good for them.
>
> Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether there is a substantial increased risk
> of significant injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
: have come to difference conclusions on that question.
:
: And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

References?

: Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

References?

: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific journal, it would be easy enough to find.
: Bet it didnt.

It did and you obviously have not done that much post graduate research to say that it would be easy
to find. Do you realise how many PhD's are completed each year in the world at respected
univeristies which are peer reviewed and defended as a matter of course. Not to mention post
doctoral published works.

Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me the easy way to find published reviewed works?

: What matters is how much of a difference it makes, particularly when that particular activity
: involves a higher risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

References?

:
: Thats always been the problem with team sports for example. They certainly do have some health
: benefits BUT they also have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

References?

: Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one obvious alternative to bike
: commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

Actually according to this study and others walking has been disputed as having that much of a
benefit except power walking.

:
: Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
:
: Utterly bogus.

References?

: > One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial road.
:
: Should also include dedicated bikeways.

We are talking about roads not bikeways and they were talking about roads.

:
: > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases
: > to 0.015 accidents (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
:
: Then its stupidly superficial.

Well actually it sways more for your argument.
:
: Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether there is a substantial increased risk
: of significant injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications at all or do you sit in
some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.