B
Bill Z.
Guest
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
> Just zis Guy wrote:
> I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
> mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
> increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
> hourly or per mile risk would go down.
If you ploted that for the *same cyclist*, assuming reasonably low
accident rates, the slope would be 1. Risk goes down with increased
skill. You can find some highly skilled, low mileage cyclists
(typically people who have ridden for years, but due to work/personal
constraints or some medical condition can't ride as much any more.)
Generally, though, skills improve the more you ride, but you can
increase your mileage far easier than you can increase your skill
level.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> Just zis Guy wrote:
> I'm still reasonable certain that if you plotted yearly risk against yearly
> mileage for the "average cyclist", the graph would be monotonically
> increasing, although with a slope of less than one. I agree that the
> hourly or per mile risk would go down.
If you ploted that for the *same cyclist*, assuming reasonably low
accident rates, the slope would be 1. Risk goes down with increased
skill. You can find some highly skilled, low mileage cyclists
(typically people who have ridden for years, but due to work/personal
constraints or some medical condition can't ride as much any more.)
Generally, though, skills improve the more you ride, but you can
increase your mileage far easier than you can increase your skill
level.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB