Glen F <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence
for their POV or is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.
Quoted message said:Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting.
Some previous efforts from the archive:
Quoted message said:http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):
Quoted message said:Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue
from an informed perspective rather than just trading opinions.
Pity about your ear to ear dog [censored] on the relevance of this [censored]:
Quoted message said:Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):
Quoted message said:Cyclists: 0.41
Pedestrians: 0.80
MV occupants: 0.46
Motorcyclists: 7.66
Completely useless when you aint comparing apples with apples with
cars and cyclists particularly the situations where the fatalitys occur.
The only valid statistic would be the number of FATAL
ACCIDENTS, not corpses, and only in builtup areas
where the vast bulk of the cyclist fatalitys occur.
AND fatalitys are pretty useless too. What most people
care about is injurys that require a hospital visit etc.
Quoted message said:Number of deaths from head injury per million hours
(Vicroads 1990 and Federal Office of Road Safety 1992):
Quoted message said:Cyclists: 0.19
Pedestrians: 0.34
MV occupants: 0.17
Motorcyclists: 2.9
Also completely useless for the same reasons.
Quoted message said:Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours
(above, plus Queensland Health Department)
Quoted message said:Cyclists: 2.2
Pedestrians: 2.0
MV occupants: 1.6
Motorcyclists:18.0
Also completely useless for the same reasons.
Quoted message said:And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):
Quoted message said:There are biases in all stats.
Yes, but there isnt any need for the stats to be
as flagrantly biased as that pathetic collection.
Quoted message said:And it depends what you're comparing.
Yep, and those above are obviously comparing apples and oranges
with cars and cyclists particularly when the outcome being counted
happens in quite different situations most of the time with both.
Quoted message said: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).
Its a lot higher than that. And in fact you get few
fatalitys with cars with commuting entirely in builtup areas.
Quoted message said:Allowing that total vehicle occupant-
hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1
Its nothing like that either.
Quoted message said:(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.
It is in fact much less than that with commuting entirely in builtup areas.
Quoted message said:And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess),
Stupid guess in fact.
Quoted message said:that would make cycle commuting about
twice as dangerous as car commuting.
You've just plucked those silly numbers out of your [censored].
AND what matters much more than just fatalitys is accidents
that require a hospital VISIT, not necessarily admission too.
Thats MUCH more common with commuting cyclists than
with car commuters, just because they have very little
protection when the inevitable happens and someone
does something stupid, like not noticing the cyclist etc.
Quoted message said: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,
Thats wrong too. By definition those that commute over the
longer distances are rather less likely to use a bike to do it,
particularly in the capital citys that have the longest commutes.
Quoted message said:so in terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle
commuting being about 2.5 times as dangerous as car commuting.
Just another silly number plucked out of your [censored].
Quoted message said: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.
'the other things we do' are completely irrelevant when
considering the substantial increased risk of a trip to the
hospital if you choose to commute on a bike instead of the car.
Quoted message said:Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring
the cardio-vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle.
There isnt much evidence that bike riding helps much on that.
And it makes a lot more sense to get that exercise more safely.
Quoted message said:If you cycle-commute, that, by itself is more than
enough exercise to define you as non-sedentary,
from a cardiologist's viewpoint.
What matters is whether it helps much health wise.
Thats distinctly arguable when bike commuting exposes
you to a significantly higher risk of an accident that
requires a trip to hospital and you have the other
problem with what you breath during the commute.
Quoted message said: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.
Wrong. As always.
Quoted message said:At least 10 times any commuting road trauma risk.
Yet another utterly bogus 'statistic'.
You cant lump in that other stuff like over 40 and
overweight JUST for those who use a car, stupid.
