Best states (west of great lakes) for cycling



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:49:23 GMT, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What is bothersome is that the US in 1996 had a death rate
>>at least five times higher than the lowest countries on the
>>chart. Again, considering the chart is for a single year
>>and that over time some reversion to the mean will take place,
>>and assuming the cyclehelmets.org guys grabbed the most skewed
>>statistics to prove a point, it would seems to me that the US
>>may be running around twice the rate of deaths as the lowest
>>countries.
>>
>>Why might that be? And if that is the reality, I think the
>>argument should be what to do about it, rather than whether
>>MHLs have any effect on fatality rate or cycling participation.
>>

>
> You seem to be missing the point.
>
> One of the most common reasons that people give for not cycling is
> that they think it is dangerous.
>
> People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
> the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
> helmet.
>


BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not
because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on
rocks. They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and
they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets, personally I think
it;'s the Parrot colored jerseys that make it dangerous.

My last post on this stupid subject.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 25, 3:57 pm, "David Tang" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>>

<<...statistical information deleted...>>
>>
>> I'm curious to know what jurisdiction these statistics
>> were taken from. I'm guessing they are from a study
>> Robinson did in Australia in 1996, from which he's often
>> cited.

>
> Yes, they are. If you have other data, we should examine it.
>
> FWIW, I've seen data from several different countries (although it's
> buried pretty deeply). There are differences between countries, but
> one consistent main point: The fatality risk of cycling is extremely
> low, with many millions of miles biked between fatalities.
> Differences between different countries and different data amount to
> comparing infinitesmals.
>
>> If so, can these numbers really be applied to the
>> US?

>
> The two cultures and two infrastructures are pretty similar, from what
> I can tell (including, sadly, the propensity to obesity in the two).
> But if you've specific US data, we should look at it.
>
> Take a look at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
> to see some of the information I found.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


No, I don't have any other data. Statistics being what they are,
it just seems prudent to question them.

- David
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just know what happens
>in my little world, which is at least 5 or 6 people who have crashed and
>were ok, except for their helmets which were split and broken.


Really? That's more than I've known from both bicycle racing teams and
regular bicycle clubs over the last 20 years, once you remove the
accidents in the act of racing. I've known four deaths, all on the
road, none of which would have been prevented by the helmet - actually
all four were wearing helmets.

Now, I've been wearing helmets from the old MSR days in the 1970s, and
still wear them, but I have to say, your little world seems to have a
lot of careless riders. Certainly I can see 5 or 6 accidents where
helmets were scraped badly - I've had several racing accidents that
popped rivets in the helmet and two accidents over the last thirty
years on the road where the helmet hit the road, but neither split and
broke the helmet, not even the all-Styrofoam-with-cloth-cover. I also
had an accident with a track helmet on the road back in 1972 that had
the Army guys at Fort Ord add me to a study, but it didn't lower my
scores on tests, much less kill me. Yeah, I couldn't understand
English for a while or count fingers held up in front of my face, but
the damage was very local and very transient.

For us, the majority, in the middle, the exaggerated numbers of
dead-but-for-their-helmets are as bad as the Armageddon of the MHLs.
We used to have 'emergency room physicians' pop in with numbers that
they saw that did not match any reported levels of accidents or the
numbers that should have been seen in recovery and rehab rooms in the
aftermath. Bicycle accidents are in general minor enough to not
require major rehab. Sit in a sports rehab clinic and count the
cyclists - I've done it from both sides. I screwed up a knee in an odd
accident (flipped completely over the handlebars after another bike
trashed my front wheel) and still spend an occasional day in the local
clinic and I also did the accounting for several rehab clinics.

You have soccer player after soccer player, lots of football stuff, a
lot of lacrosse players in our area, but no bicyclists to speak of.
Head injury rehab? We really don't make the needle move much. Speaking
as someone that used to have to do the numbers on large volumes of
insurance numbers from Prudential to determine the capitation rates
for our clinic charges - bicycling is not a real factor worth
mentioning. Literally.

Get your little world to a couple of good bike handling classes. They
are falling head first altogether too often.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
> > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
> > helmet.


And of course, they've been _told_ it's dangerous, over and over, as a
way to get them to buy helmets!

>
> BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not
> because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on
> rocks.


Yes, people think mountain climbing is dangerous. And they note that
mountain climbers wear helmets. People also think skydiving is
dangerous, and they note that skydivers wear helmets. Ditto for
professional football, auto racing, motorcycling, whitewater kayaking,
etc.

So helmets have, naturally enough, become a signal for "danger." This
hurts cycling participation.

As an exercise, please list all the activities that are considered
very safe, for which helmets are required.

As a second exercise, please list all the activities that are
considered very safe, where promotional literature commonly talks
about the number of fatalities that occur annually, the percentage of
fatalities that are caused by any particular type of trauma (like
brain injury), etc.

Certainly, swimming (with far more deaths per year, and far more
deaths per hour participation) gets none of that publicity. And as a
result, people think of swimming as very safe family fun.

So why do bicyclists enjoy scaring people away from cycling?

> They think bikes are dangerous because cars smash into them and
> they also fall on pavement, nothing to do with helmets...


Oh please. Cyclists have been falling on pavement and skinning knees
since cyclists first succeeded in _getting_ pavement, back in the
1890s. Until the 1990s, it didn't stop parents from training 5-year-
olds to ride bikes. Beginners rode quiet streets with few cars, then
gradually dealt with more traffic as their skills increased. There
was never a time when ordinary cycling was very dangerous.

Once the Helmet Scare Campaign was in high gear, then you began to
hear of deaths, brain injuries, and any other horror that would make a
buck out of styrofoam.

> My last post on this stupid subject.


Try reading about it at www.cyclehelmets.org, or for a lighter
treatment, http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/index.html

At least you'll know a little more when you return.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 26, 9:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>


<snipped>

- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs -


> > My last post on this stupid subject.

>


<snipped>

>
> At least you'll know a little more when you return.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


Franky Krygowski, smug and condescending right to the end.
 
On 26 Mar 2007 08:31:03 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > People who do not now cycle look at cyclists wearing helmets, and draw
>> > the obvious conclusion - it _must_ be dangerous, they are wearing a
>> > helmet.

>
>And of course, they've been _told_ it's dangerous, over and over, as a
>way to get them to buy helmets!
>
>>
>> BS. people also think Mountain Climbing is also dangerous, but it's not
>> because they wear helmets, it's because they fall from great heights on
>> rocks.

>
>Yes, people think mountain climbing is dangerous. And they note that
>mountain climbers wear helmets. People also think skydiving is
>dangerous, and they note that skydivers wear helmets. Ditto for
>professional football, auto racing, motorcycling, whitewater kayaking,
>etc.


Which begs the question, why are helmets not required by law for
climbers, skydivers, football players, auto and motorcycle racers,
kyakers, etcetera?
 
On Mar 26, 10:34 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2007 08:57:09 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 26, 9:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Mar 26, 7:24 am, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> ><snipped>

>
> >- pointless discussions of imaginary MHLs -

>
> This from someone who has called for an MHL.


Please provide the evidence, ********. It's been over two weeks now.
Post the link!


>
> Not one that he himself would be subject to, oh no; only _other_
> people should have to wear helmets.




Come on, we could still use that laugh!!!
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 26, 10:35 am, [email protected] wrote:


{snips}

>> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
>> zealots.


> Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
> to be an important fight, I would
> suggest not relying on such obviously
> laughably bogus 'data'.


Too late.
 
On Mar 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 10:35 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> {snips}
>
> >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
> >> zealots.

> > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
> > to be an important fight, I would
> > suggest not relying on such obviously
> > laughably bogus 'data'.

>
> Too late.



Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their
interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as
"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Why do you say it is obviously laughable?


Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
to the library and look at the original
source for this 'information.' It's in a
magazine called Design News, appended
to an article about car fires. The date of
the issue was October 4, 1993. The
article had nothing to do with bicycling.
Check it out and tell us if you can:

-- determine if the numbers are for the
previous year (1992), or for some other
year, or for a year's worth of data, or
a decade's, or a month's, or forever...

-- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
kids or just to adults.

-- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
or the whole world's population of cyclists.

-- determine what methodology was used
to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
(regardless of what place or time period
the chart is concerned with), a necessary
step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'

-- ETC.

I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
not there for our edification and enjoyment.
I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
confidential!

This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
useless. The number itself might be right on the
mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
would do such a thing??

Robert
 
On Mar 26, 11:49 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Why do you say it is obviously laughable?

>
> Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
> to the library and look at the original
> source for this 'information.' It's in a
> magazine called Design News, appended
> to an article about car fires. The date of
> the issue was October 4, 1993. The
> article had nothing to do with bicycling.
> Check it out and tell us if you can:
>
> -- determine if the numbers are for the
> previous year (1992), or for some other
> year, or for a year's worth of data, or
> a decade's, or a month's, or forever...
>
> -- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
> kids or just to adults.
>
> -- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
> or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
> or the whole world's population of cyclists.
>
> -- determine what methodology was used
> to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
> (regardless of what place or time period
> the chart is concerned with), a necessary
> step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'
>
> -- ETC.
>
> I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
> not there for our edification and enjoyment.
> I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
> confidential!
>
> This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
> useless. The number itself might be right on the
> mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
> this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
> undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
> would do such a thing??


It's true, the chart was not presented as a definitive study of bike
safety data. It was a straightforward attempt to put various terrible
consequences in context, i.e. to rate relative risks. The article to
which it was attached was not written by FAA staff. Apparently an
editor asked (and probably paid) for the relative risk list, from the
largest risk consultation firm in the US.

But the list has gotten a lot of attention from the bicycling crowd,
for two reasons:

1) Bicycling advocates have pointed out that it rates cycling's
fatality rate (per hour) as tiny, roughly half that of motoring, and
roughly 1/4 that of swimming.

2) Bicycling's detractors claim it must be worthless, since the data
sources are not explained.

But so far, the detractors (i.e. the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crowd)
haven't complained about the lack of explanation of swimming
exposure. Or motorcycling. Or flying in light planes. Or scuba
diving. Or water skiing. None of which have easily estimable hours
of exposure, and all of which are listed as having higher fatality
rates than cycling. (Motoring can be said to have more data behind
it, but there's still significant uncertainty there - as well as great
differences in different conditions, e.g. freeway vs. country
highway.)

The bicycling detractors have also not given better data as a
rebuttal, AFAIK.

What can be said is that the FAA cycling figure is roughly comparable
to findings from several other countries, using their own methods.
And if it's off by a factor of four, cycling is still safer than
swimming, according to FAA's "swimming" data. Should we scare people
away from the pool and beach? And even if it's off by a factor of
ten, cycling still requires many millions of miles before you reach
even a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike.

How many millions of miles do you plan to cycle? For the math phobics
with cheap calculators, here's a hint: you'd better be a strong
believer in reincarnation.

Here's the list: http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 27, 1:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of
> >> bicycle working trips,

>
> > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by
> > bicycle.

>
> Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters
> aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL....


Or rather, that even if they already did, there are enough others to
produce the 1.8% figure.

Now, without the MHL, would it be more like 2.4%?

Remember, worldwide, the places with the most cyclists have the fewest
MHLs, and vice versa. Is there a cause & effect relationship?

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of
>> bicycle working trips,

>
> The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by
> bicycle.


Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters
aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> On Mar 27, 1:35 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >> Seattle rates a recent (early 2000's) 0.7% modal share of
>> >> bicycle working trips,

>>
>> > The 2000 U.S. Census found 1.8 percent of adults in Seattle commute by
>> > bicycle.

>>
>> Well anyway, it's good to know that Seattle cycle-commuters
>> aren't giving up in droves because of any MHL....

>
> Or rather, that even if they already did, there are enough others to
> produce the 1.8% figure.
>
> Now, without the MHL, would it be more like 2.4%?


Beats 0.5% Tucson's 2.2% sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
I don't believe Seattle endures as much rain or snow as
Tucson. And Seattle ain't exactly a flat ironing board.

> Remember, worldwide, the places with the most cyclists have the fewest
> MHLs, and vice versa.


Not always.

> Is there a cause & effect relationship?


That's a good question, because there are so many
other things to take into consideration. For example,
how many of those places you tout as having more riders/
less MHL also have <gasp> cycling infrastructure?

Maybe it's not /always/ or /simply/ about helmets?

But okay. Don't move to Seattle. 1.8% is a pretty
crummy modal share. More Captain Ivar's seafood for
those who dare to habituate, visit or linger.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
On 26 Mar 2007 20:49:58 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Why do you say it is obviously laughable?

>
>Come on Jtaylor. Why don't you go
>to the library and look at the original
>source for this 'information.' It's in a
>magazine called Design News, appended
>to an article about car fires. The date of
>the issue was October 4, 1993. The
>article had nothing to do with bicycling.
>Check it out and tell us if you can:
>
>-- determine if the numbers are for the
>previous year (1992), or for some other
>year, or for a year's worth of data, or
>a decade's, or a month's, or forever...
>
>-- determine if it refers to all cyclists including
>kids or just to adults.
>
>-- determine if it refers only to US cyclists
>or US and Euro cyclists or just British cyclists
>or the whole world's population of cyclists.
>
>-- determine what methodology was used
>to estimate the total amount of cycling in hours
>(regardless of what place or time period
>the chart is concerned with), a necessary
>step to arrive at the precious 'fatality rate.'
>
>-- ETC.
>
>I'll give you a hint jtaylor. That information is
>not there for our edification and enjoyment.
>I guess Exponent was keeping all that essential info
>confidential!
>
>This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
>useless. The number itself might be right on the
>mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
>this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
>undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
>would do such a thing??
>
>Robert



None of your objections support your estimation of "bogus",
"laughable", and so on.

If you know the figures are wrong, you must know what the real ones
are...

O chosen one, why don't you tell us what the real ones are?
 
On 26 Mar 2007 21:36:35 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>> This chart is a total non-starter. It is completely
>> useless. The number itself might be right on the
>> mark (for some [?] parameter), but to wave
>> this chart around, repeatedly, as 'data' would be
>> undeniably laughable, bogus and ridiculous. Who
>> would do such a thing??

>
>It's true, the chart was not presented as a definitive study of bike
>safety data. It was a straightforward attempt to put various terrible
>consequences in context, i.e. to rate relative risks. The article to
>which it was attached was not written by FAA staff. Apparently an
>editor asked (and probably paid) for the relative risk list, from the
>largest risk consultation firm in the US.
>
>But the list has gotten a lot of attention from the bicycling crowd,
>for two reasons:
>
>1) Bicycling advocates have pointed out that it rates cycling's
>fatality rate (per hour) as tiny, roughly half that of motoring, and
>roughly 1/4 that of swimming.
>
>2) Bicycling's detractors claim it must be worthless, since the data
>sources are not explained.
>
>But so far, the detractors (i.e. the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crowd)
>haven't complained about the lack of explanation of swimming
>exposure. Or motorcycling. Or flying in light planes. Or scuba
>diving. Or water skiing. None of which have easily estimable hours
>of exposure, and all of which are listed as having higher fatality
>rates than cycling. (Motoring can be said to have more data behind
>it, but there's still significant uncertainty there - as well as great
>differences in different conditions, e.g. freeway vs. country
>highway.)
>
>The bicycling detractors have also not given better data as a
>rebuttal, AFAIK.
>
>What can be said is that the FAA cycling figure is roughly comparable
>to findings from several other countries, using their own methods.
>And if it's off by a factor of four, cycling is still safer than
>swimming, according to FAA's "swimming" data. Should we scare people
>away from the pool and beach? And even if it's off by a factor of
>ten, cycling still requires many millions of miles before you reach
>even a 50/50 chance of dying on the bike.
>



Just to put these numbers in terms that someone with _really_ poor
math skills can understand, you'd have to cycle (at typical cycling
speeds) around the world - all the way around the equator, pacific
ocean and everything, about 800 times to have 1/2 a chance of dying.

Factor of ten off? Goodness, that's only 80 times around the world;
better get those magic foam hats on...

....if only one life is saved...

....think of the chiiilllddddrrruuuunnn...
 
On 26 Mar 2007 20:06:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Mar 26, 10:35 am, [email protected] wrote:

>>
>> {snips}
>>
>> >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
>> >> zealots.
>> > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
>> > to be an important fight, I would
>> > suggest not relying on such obviously
>> > laughably bogus 'data'.

>>
>> Too late.

>
>
>Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their
>interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as
>"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski.



People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned
when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very
newsgroup.

All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for

"I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"

and

"I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
MHL with prison terms. "
 
On Mar 27, 2:11 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2007 20:06:07 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 26, 6:32 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> > On Mar 26, 10:35 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >> {snips}

>
> >> >> - unless, of course, you are one of those pro-helmet and/or pro-MHL
> >> >> zealots.
> >> > Not me. If you want to fight MHLs, which I consider
> >> > to be an important fight, I would
> >> > suggest not relying on such obviously
> >> > laughably bogus 'data'.

>
> >> Too late.

>
> >Anyone concerned about the spread of MHLs should realize that their
> >interests are not served by the antics of crackpots and cranks such as
> >"jtaylor" and Frank Krygowski.

>
> People who are against MHL's would be well advised to BE concerned
> when others call for an MHL, as you have repeatedly done in this very
> newsgroup.
>
> All anyone has to do to see this is search the ng archives for
>
> "I'd like one in your jurisdiction that was well and truly enforced"
>
> and
>
> "I do wish jtaylor gets the karma he deserves; in this case, a strong
> MHL with prison terms."




Mercy!!! The TRUTH at last!!!!

That's right, "jtaylor", I wished a MHL for *you*, as karmic payback
for the ass that you are.

In fact, I later wished you a Mandatory Helmet *Life*: helmets whilst
cycling, walking, showering, sleeping, defecating, wanking off, etc. I
even suggested that you be interred with a helmet on your pointy
little head. Yes, "jtaylor", for you I wish a Mandatory Helmet
AfterLife!

Only a lying, deceptive, deluded nutcase like you would try to twist
what I wrote into a call for a MHL.

But that's typical for you, isn't it?
 

Similar threads