Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

  • Thread starter Elisa Francesca Roselli
  • Start date



gds wrote:

> But again several of you want to mis quote and misconsture what is
> being said.


Please provide references and citations to prove this.
 
gds wrote:
> peter wrote:
> > gds wrote:
> > [SMS wrote:
> > > It's amusing when you see the posts by cyclists in countries with MHLs,
> > > claiming that they've been riding for 20, 30, 40, 50, years, etc., but
> > > gave it up when the MHL was enacted.]

> >
> > > See the discusion seveal years ago at:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/aus....+of+helmet+laws&rnum=1&hl=en#20ab92bc8b9fb83a
> > >
> > > As usual the discussion wanders on and off topic but there are some
> > > examples, even if not very good ones.

> >
> > Yes, typical meandering USENET thread. But are there actually any
> > examples in there that back up Steven's claim? I.e. someone posting
> > who says that they personally gave up cycling after 20 or more years
> > because of a MHL?
> >
> > His claim that it's primarily the active experienced riders who would
> > quit leaving the inexperienced novices with a high accident rate
> > doesn't strike me as at all logical and I see no evidence to back it
> > up. Of course that's not surprising when it comes to SMS's claims

>
> I merely pointed to the thread as a discussion of the point in
> question. Does anyone see a claim by me of anything else?


Yes, you stated that there were "some examples" in the thread you
cited. My cursory glance at the thread didn't find any so I was
wondering if there really were some.

> BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding or
> not after a MHL is enacted. Never claimed to have any.


Nor has anyone stated that you did.
 
gds wrote:
>
> BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding
> or not after a MHL is enacted.


Or on anything else AFAICS, just complaints about the data of others.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> gds wrote:
> >
> > BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding
> > or not after a MHL is enacted.

>
> Or on anything else AFAICS, just complaints about the data of others.
>
>

But it is a lot less delusional a state than thinking you have data
which proves something when you don't.

I have good data on lots of things. I don't think anyone has good data
on helmet efficacy.
 
gds wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> gds wrote:
>>> BTW I have no data on what level of experience corelates with riding
>>> or not after a MHL is enacted.

>> Or on anything else AFAICS, just complaints about the data of others.
>>
>>

> But it is a lot less delusional a state than thinking you have data
> which proves something when you don't.


It's clear that if you don't have accurate data that proves something,
then you simply must accept the bad data. "So you don't like the haircut
I gave you, I suppose you could do better?"

> I have good data on lots of things. I don't think anyone has good data
> on helmet efficacy.


Not at the population level, that's for sure.
 
On 8 Jan 2006 00:30:52 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>> I've noticed a pattern in this thread which is whenever Scharf the Larf
>> gets to a situation is sub-thread where his position is untenable,
>> instead of accepting it he suddenly evaporates from that sub-thread and
>> pops up elsewhere with a different argument.

>
>In fact, that's exactly how this thread moved from a discussion of
>headlights to a discussion of helmets, IIRC.
>
>- Frank Krygowski


Hi Frank,

I noticed you have ignored Mr. Ed's instructions (on altering your
name). Aren't you worried that usenet's general population will be
concerned?

;-)

Indiana Mike
 
gds wrote:
> OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?


I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
literally never come close to needing it.

I will wear one on our club rides, because I don't want our rides to be
endless helmet debates. But most of my riding is not on club rides.

When I do "tricky" mountain biking (that is, where a fall is a
reasonable possibility, not just flat terrain cruises) I sometimes wear
one. But I do very little of that these days.

I actually started wearing one at my wife's request, when we moved to a
bigger city and my commute was longer with more traffic. But I no
longer wear one for commuting.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> gds wrote:
>> OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

>
> I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
> literally never come close to needing it.


Only takes once. (Same goes for seat belts, catastrophic health insurance,
birth control, fire insurance, etc etc etc etc...)

Bill "whatever" S.
 
Sorni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > gds wrote:
> >> OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?

> >
> > I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
> > literally never come close to needing it.

>
> Only takes once.


Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
too.

But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?

- Frank Krygowski
 
gds wrote:
> I find the various "appeals to authority" interesting. As well as the
> oposite.
>
> Frank, saying we should apply a deep discount to Robert's point because
> he is "just" a bike messenger lacks any measure of intellectual
> honesty. His arguments are good or bad irrespective of how he makes a
> living.
>
> And the opposite is true. Just because one has "prfessional standing"
> does not make their argument right or wrong- the arguemnt is
> independent of the presentor.


The particular issue is this: who knows how to determine how many
miles, or hours, are bicycles ridden in a year? That question applies
for the US, and separately for Great Britain, for Germany, for France,
for Australia, for Sweden, for Switzerland, for the Netherlands, etc.

In each of those countries, there are people whose professions include
the responsibility to do just that. It's reasonable to assume they
have training in doing that, and that their work has been examined by
others with interest in the results.

They have determinied those values to their satisfaction, and used them
to calculate things like fatalities per hour for cycling. Yes, there
is acknowledged uncertainty. But _all_ the figures I've been able to
find claim the risk of cycling is within the same general range - and
quite low.

On the other hand, we have Robert who (AFAIK) has no training in this.
He simply does not believe such a thing is possible. And he feels that
all the numbers that have been determined are very wrong - that cycling
is actually very dangerous, despite data from the US, from Great
Britain, from France, from Australia, from Sweden, from Switzerland,
from the Netherlands, etc. saying otherwise.

Robert's disbelief that these numbers are even possible just doesn't
make sense, given that this is being done all the time, and that the
figures generally agree - especially when allowing for the natural
differences in cycling conditions in different countries.

> The recent news story about faked cloning in South Korea is a good
> lesson. Remember, that a nanosecond before the story broke the
> researcher in question was considered a luminary in the field.


Here's why that situation is not parallel: He was one researcher, one
expert in that field. What he supposedly discovered was far different
than what anyone else had done. And in relatively short order, another
expert in that field (a colleague, actually) noted and warned of his
"mistake" or wrongdoing.

If we had other expert researchers in seven other countries who had
independently validated his techniques, it's highly unlikely that _all_
would be found to be fake. That's one of the main checks that's built
into science.

In our little issue, we do have researchers in many countries who are
effectively validating the idea that cycling is safe. They are all
finding fatality rates down around one per million hours or lower.

And the protests are not coming from other researchers. They are
coming from one bike messenger with no training in the field.


I don't know exactly what your field is, gds. But in mine, I've had
unschooled amateurs come forward with radical ideas and ask for my
endorsement, or that of my colleagues. In at least one case I know,
they succeeded in getting big money out of a few investors.

But the experts said they were wrong. And the investors lost all
they'd bet.


> I am not suggesting any fraud in any of the studies quoted. But I am
> pointing out that degrees and job titles - or their absence- is not
> what makes findings valid.


Right. Instead, it's corroboration. Which is, broadly speaking, what
we've got.

> Attack the argument not the person.


OK. Robert's probably a nice guy and a good bike messenger.

But his inability to understand transportation surveys doesn't
invalidate those surveys.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I don't doubt that it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for a
> > bike messenger. I doubt it's incredibly difficult or impossible for a
> > professional working in an appropriate field.

>
> <snobbish personal attack noted>
>
> Personally I am amused that a bike messenger would
> always be the one to remind an 'engineer' about
> the minimum standards of the scientific method.


:) In his professional opinion?

> But this is just basic stuff I learned when I was in
> grade school; it's not like you have to be a
> professional researcher to understand the basic
> standards for what can be called data.


When I went to grad school, I learned quite a bit more than I knew in
grade school. Maybe that's the source of some of our disagreement.

> > I note that such
> > estimates have been published for cycling by professional researchers
> > in many different countries, so those professionals seem to think
> > they're pulling it off.

>
> I doubt they think any such thing. Otherwise, those
> who use these estimates for their own ends, like yourself,
> would actually include some sort of methodology for
> them.


Part of my problem is due to my personal limitations. Sadly, I speak
only English (and that's not a wise crack). Thus, I've had to rely on
papers in English that gave the numbers but not the details.

But I did recently get some explanation of how Great Britain determines
its numbers. It turns out it's quite a thorough system of regular
surveys of activity and transportation, backed up by a system of road
observations with trained observers.

> t's not the professionals who think they're
> 'pulling it off,' it's the psuedo professionals like yourself
> who abuse their results.


The only thing I did with the results was report them. It's only your
dislike of the results that leads to the charge of "abuse."

>Maybe
> you could explain, in detail, why you think the
> numbers given are correct. Is it simply because
> you believe anything told to you by a 'professional?'


<sigh> As I've explained repeatedly, what I believe is the numbers are
acceptably accurate. I don't doubt that absolutely perfect data would
be a bit different; but I doubt it would be significantly different.

Why? Because the numbers determined by researchers in roughly seven
different countries were all reasonably close. That is, in every
country I've listed, researchers estimate down around one fatality per
million hours cycling or less. Broadly speaking, that's corroboration
of the fact that cycling is NOT very dangerous.

I think I'd better split my response into two pieces. The above
relates to fatality per hour data. More later.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote, regarding what's a "serious" injury:
>
>
> > > Oh jeez. People do not 'smash' their derailers when
> > > falling over at a traffic light! Ride much? A $50 wreck
> > > is also likely to result in injury to the rider, as is
> > > reflected in that study.

> >
> > Oh jeez, indeed! I gave that as one example! Check Nashbar for the
> > price of a Gore-tex jacket.
> > http://tinyurl.com/avj6h
> > If a person falls and rips his jacket but suffers no injury, that's a
> > "serious accident" by Moritz's standard. If a person tries to ride
> > through a narrow space between buildings and hooks and rips a pannier,
> > that's a "serious accident." If a person slips and trashes his right
> > STI lever, that too is "serious", even if the person isn't hurt at all.

>
> And if a person goes to the hospital and incurs $250,000 worth
> of medical expenses, that doesn't count at all! Because it's
> an 'outlier.' Great stuff.


Do you understand what "outlier" means in statistics? Are you aware of
"Student's t-test," a mathematical rule for excluding outlying data,
and why it's used? Are you aware that a $250,000 data point among a
$150 median data set is almost always excluded as spurious? And are
you aware that this would _certainly_ be done if (as in the case of
Moritz's data) there was no explanation for that point?

This is standard statistical treatment of data, Robert, using
well-established rules. You may not be familiar with this, but that
does _not_ mean it's somehow cheating!


> In any case, the estimates show that cycling is
> ... relatively likely to cause injury.
> That's injury, as in both serious and minor.


"Relatively likely" compared to what? Playing basketball? And by what
measure - emergency room visits per year, or per hour?

If you claim it's per hour, you'll need to find per hour data on
basketball. I'm curious how you'll do that, and what methodology will
have been used, and how valid you'll claim it is.

If it's per year, you're simply wrong. Basketball causes quite a few
more ER visits per year in the US than does cycling. (That's from the
National Safety Council, using NEISS data, IIRC.)

If you're talking minor injuries, I recently cited a paper that showed
that gardening, weighlifting, aerobics and walking for exercise all
cause more injuries per month than cycling does. (Do you want that
citation again?)

>
> > > I guess it depends on how you define 'serious injury,'
> > > doesn't it?

> >
> > Of course. One of the problems with this sort of work is defining
> > various types and levels of injury. (Recall that Thompson and Rivara
> > called a cut hear a "head injury" to pump up fear.)


Sorry for the typo. That was supposed to be "called a cut _ear_ a
"head injury"...

>
> The medical terminology also classifies many
> injuries which laypeople do not typically think
> of as head injuries as head injuries.


The point is, people hear "head injury" and they think "debilitating
brain injury, drooling in a wheelchair." T&R's classification of cut
ears as head injury was, I believe, deliberately deceptive.

> > > .01% is 100-per-million population, or what
> > > about 40,000 every year in the US.

> >
> > Remember, that figure was for San Diego county. The proportion for all
> > America is likely to be signficantly less. Not much cycling in Fargo
> > during the winter.

>
> Maybe, maybe not.


I'll just let that stand, thanks.


> > The threshold Moritz used was simply wrong. It was too low. And yet,
> > even with that, his paper shows cycling to be acceptably safe.

>
> One of the most serious injuries I have ever suffered
> caused absolutely no damage to the bike, and I never
> went to the doctor because I had no insurance at the
> time. Thus this rather debilitating injury cost exactly
> $0 on the Moritz scale. I'm sure there is a lot of
> that, but you only see the other side of it, the
> minor injuries that make it into the 'real' column.


I'm sure that there are serious injuries that don't get reported.
Nothing is perfect. But your rationale, that any imperfection
(specified or not) requires completely discarding all information, is
completely silly.

One of the things I got some training in is called "error propagation."
In my field, it's a technique for estimating a variety of errors in a
series of related measurements, and computing how they are likely to
affect the overall outcome. It involves a little advanced math - that
is, at least partial derivatives. But briefly, a 10% error in a
certain measurement does not mean the entire result will be off by 10%.
Depending on the situation, you can still get very good overall
results.


> I see you using the term 'acceptably safe' now.
> Is it no longer 'relatively safe?'


Oh, quit looking for boogeymen! Bicycling is both "relatively safe,"
and "acceptably safe."


> No, Frank. It is you who continually insist that I
> am referring to minor injuries. I am concerned
> with 'real injuries.' Not skinned knees, as you
> continually insist.


Perhaps you and I should agree on the exact level of injuries to term
"serious," and promise to never mention lesser ones. Where would you
agree on a limit?

FWIW, I don't like "ER visit" as a threshold. Too low, because many ER
trips are for injuries and ailments that would never lead to problems
if untreated. As examples, we took my daughter to the ER once, because
of a bad cold on a weekend. I went to the ER once for a half-inch cut
on my foot, and was told I should have just used a butterfly bandaid.

How about hospital admission? There are decent records for that, I
believe.

>
> > If all that time, you were talking about _serious_ injuries per mile,
> > then I suppose you are not lying in your paragraph just above. But,
> > OTOH, you are absolutely mad!

>
> Absolutely mad, huh? Okay. Takes one to know one I guess.
> Kifer and Moritz both reported roughly 10% of their very
> experienced respondents suffered a 'real' or a 'serious'
> injury in the past year....
>
> That is your cue to repeat your unsubstantiated claim
> that the 'real' and 'serious' crashes reported in these
> surveys are actually 'minor' injuries.


That is my clue to tell anyone else to read the original documents.
I'll let them decide.

But since I'm perhaps not understanding you: Are you claiming that
there are lots of _serious_ injuries per hour cycling, or lots of
_minor_ injuries per hour?

>
> There you go again.


:) Was that your Ronald Reagan impression?

> Insisting that the 'real' and
> 'serious' injuries reported by cyclists are actually
> all minor and consequential...


No, I'm insisting that the vast majority of injuries reported by
cyclists are minor. And that even those are rare.


> What the hell are you talking about? I have
> never written any such thing. There are literally
> millions of cases of road rash every year that never
> see a doctor and are not reported in any way.


So is road rash serious? How much does it take to be serious? A
square inch? Six square inches? A square foot?

Is it serious only when it happens on a bike? How much should we wring
our hands if the same amount happens in a playground game of tag? Is
tag dangerous, too?

> > Tell us: Does your typical bike messenger head for the ER for his
> > typical case of road rash?

>
> The typical bike messenger does not
> go to the ER unless a bone is sticking out.


I suppose they all die of road rash, eh? Because, golly, road rash
really is dangerous!!!

> > Awareness is good. I've never said otherwise. But fear is not needed.
> >
> > I understand your motives are good - that you think scaring people
> > about cycling will make them better riders.
> >
> > But I disagree that such a thing is necessary or justifiable. I'll
> > note that the people most respected in cycling education also disagree
> > with you.

>
> Really? This is interesting. Who are these 'people most
> respected in cycling education,' and what do they
> say?


What they do NOT say is "Cycling in traffic is dangerous, and 'traffic'
is any time there's any other vehicle on the road" - which is, I think,
a pretty accurate quote of what you've said.

I'd say the most respected people in cycling education include John
Allen, Fred Meredith, John Schubert and John Forester, among others.
(I don't wish to slight any I'm omitting.)

I'm not aware of _any_ of these people stating, as you have done, that
cycling is dangerous.

What these people do is tell people how to ride competently and safely
- yes, even in traffic. They feel no need to frighten people. Quite
the opposite.

Any other readers may wish to read some of John Allen's qualifications
at http://www.bikemaps.com/bss.htm

and see his recommendations on riding in traffic at the excellent
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Note the absence of fear-mongering.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> gds wrote:
>>>> OK but how does that effect your personal helmet wearing behavor?
>>>
>>> I used to wear one almost all the time. Now I rarely wear one. I've
>>> literally never come close to needing it.


>> Only takes once.


> Yep. It only takes once tripping while going down a set of stairs,
> too.
>
> But I'm still not going to wear it. How about you, Bill?


If I went up & down stairs at 30-40 mph for 20, 30, or 60 miles in the
vicinity of even-faster-moving two-ton machines? Definitely!

Can't help notice you deleted the examples of OTHER things people "never
come close to needing", Frank.

Bill "got fire insurance?" S.
 
Sorni wrote:

> Can't help notice you deleted the examples of OTHER things people "never
> come close to needing", Frank.
>
> Bill "got fire insurance?" S.


When the world revolves around only you, what other people need doesn't
matter.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> (Yes, I know you must disagree, but I doubt you've studied this as
>>> much as I have.)

>>
>> Oooh. /Studied/. Gotcha.

>
> Yes. It's how one learns.
>
> Details on request.


I don't need to /study/ to know some things, Frank, but thanks for the
offer.
 
Sorni wrote:
>
> Only takes once. (Same goes for seat belts, catastrophic health insurance,
> birth control, fire insurance, etc etc etc etc...)
>


....air accident, train wreck, car crash, fall down stairs, choking on
food etc etc etc etc.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Sorni wrote:
>
> If stairs have potholes, pebbles, thorns, sewer grates, flinging doors, etc
> etc etc, then you might just have a point!
>


Whether they do or not, they still cause substantially more head
injuries than cycling.

An estimated 1 million people in Britain attend hospital each year as a
result of a head injury. Of these:

* 150,000 will suffer a minor head injury, resulting in
unconsciousness for 15 minutes or less.
* 10,000 will suffer a moderate head injury, causing
unconsciousness for up to six hours. After five years, some will still
have physical or psychological problems.
* 11,600 people will suffer severe head injury and remain
unconscious for six hours or longer. After five years, only 15 per cent
will have returned to work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness_campaigns/mar_braininjury.shtml#statistics

Of that 1 million, about 1% cyclists. Dept for Transport statistics show
under 3,000 serious cyclist injuries of all types.

I do trust you wear your helmet all the time Bill to protect against
these other causes of head injury, mainly trips and falls. After all it
just takes one........

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>> If stairs have potholes, pebbles, thorns, sewer grates, flinging
>> doors, etc etc etc, then you might just have a point!
>>

>
> Whether they do or not, they still cause substantially more head
> injuries than cycling.


Per foot? LOL

> An estimated 1 million people in Britain attend hospital each year as
> a result of a head injury.


Clumsy blokes, eh?

> Of these:
>
> * 150,000 will suffer a minor head injury, resulting in
> unconsciousness for 15 minutes or less.
> * 10,000 will suffer a moderate head injury, causing
> unconsciousness for up to six hours. After five years, some will still
> have physical or psychological problems.
> * 11,600 people will suffer severe head injury and remain
> unconscious for six hours or longer. After five years, only 15 per
> cent will have returned to work.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness_campaigns/mar_braininjury.shtml#statistics
> Of that 1 million, about 1% cyclists. Dept for Transport statistics
> show under 3,000 serious cyclist injuries of all types.
>
> I do trust you wear your helmet all the time Bill to protect against
> these other causes of head injury, mainly trips and falls. After all
> it just takes one........


Yawn. Tell you what, Tony. If I descend a steep set of unfamiliar stairs,
you bet I'd be cautious. (Hold a hand rail, go slow, whatever.) Just today
on my ride I was looking back to say something to my friend and hit an
unexpected bump/crease/hole pretty darned hard. If not for my tremendously
impressive bike-handling skills (AKA pure luck), I could easily have gone
down fast and hard. /If I had/ I would have been quite glad to be wearing a
helmet.

Just as with stairs, if I'm careless I deserve what I get. (Although here
in the US, of course, falling down MUST mean a lawsuit, regardless of how or
why it happened.) I'll take what /reasonable/ extra protection I can get.

Bill "good night now" S.