Neil Brooks said:Quoted message said:What motivates a cyclist to do this? Does it make you feel macho?
("Yeah, dude, cycling is really, really, really dangerous. But I'm so
tough that I bike anyway. Grrr!"😉
Not as macho as one who spends as much energy as you do, dodging
issues.
?? Sorry, Neil, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Quoted message said:
Tell me, Frank: why *do* you restrict *your* use of the word 'danger'
to traumatic brain injuries and death?
Do you know something that Webster's doesn't?
Again, I believe you're confused about what I've said and what I
believe. Let me try to help.
"Danger" does not have a precise numerical definition. You might be in
"danger" of embarrassment by virtue of what you post on Usenet, while
someone else may be in danger of death if their parachute doesn't open.
Both might be "dangerous" but they are much, much different.
So let's talk about the danger as it applies to bicycling. Again,
there's no absolute numerical test for "dangerous." How can we tell
whether or not to label cycling as "dangerous"?
Rhetorical figures aside, when people say something's "dangerous," they
normally mean it has an unusual probability of causing significant
injury. Obviously, "significant injury" includes death, but it includes
things like breaks in major bones, blindness, serious disfigurement,
and of course serious brain injury.
So again, I believe the normal working definition of "dangerous" is
"unusual probability of causing significant injury". But what is meant
by "unusual"? Obviously, it must mean "significantly greater than
activities which are not considered dangerous."
It therefore comes down to a comparison. Consciously or unconsciously,
this is what people are doing when they're estimating danger - they
compare against other activities.
Quoted message said:From data I've seen (and posted), if we look at "danger" of fatality,
the danger of ordinary cycling is no greater than the danger of
motoring or the danger of walking in a city. Cycling seems _much_
safer than swimming. This is significant, because the typical American
_never_ worries about death inside a car, or in a crosswalk, or
underwater. They drive, stroll and swim with no fear and no protective
clothing.
But, you ask, why look only at death and traumatic brain injury?
Actually, the answer is that I _have_ looked further; your claim about
me is false. For example, I've written about the number of ER visits
caused by different things, and noted that basketball's ER visits
easily exceed those caused by cycling. Back to the "comparison" idea -
have you _ever_ heard anyone say "Basketball is dangerous"? I have
not.
Still, there are reasons to give more attention to fatalities. For one
thing, the hand-wringers who induce worry about cycling do it. They're
fond of noting that "There are 800 bicycle fatalities in a typical
year." (US figures.) There are roughly 4000 pedestrian fatalities and
35,000+ motorist fatalities, but they won't tell you that. So I like
to point to the per-hour fatality figures to put their hype into proper
context.
Second, a fatality is a well-defined thing. As I've explained before,
"head injury" is certainly not. As I explained before, one way the
most notorious helmet promotion study inflated its claims (to achieve
that ridiculous "85%" figure) was to count cut ears as head injuries.
They counted scratched jaws as head injuries too. You know - a boo-boo
above the neck.
Third, fatalities are accurately counted. There isn't any accurate
national data on, say, broken collarbones per year. Data on lesser
injuries is even harder to find. (I know, because I looked long and
hard before finding some.)
Bicycling does have its risks. Foremost is the dreaded skinned knee -
the most common injury treated on cyclists taken to emergency rooms.
Second is - horrors! - the skinned elbow. Or to be more official:
"Minor injury of the lower extremety" and "Minor injury of the upper
extremety," if I remember the exact wording of that research paper. (I
can dig it out if you like.)
If someone can't stand the thought of skinning a knee, they shouldn't
bike. They also shouldn't jog. And, IMO, they should get some
counseling, to put some realism into their life.
But our real problem isn't skinned knees. Our problem, as cyclists, is
people who are bent on portraying cycling as _very_ dangerous. The
most irritating expression of this is "_Never_ ride without a helmet!"
Why "never"? Why, because there's a significant probability that
you'll fall off your bike, hit your head, and either die or be mentally
disabled, of course!
EXCEPT THAT IS FALSE! The probability is negligible! There is _more_
probability of that happening while walking in a city crosswalk! There
is about as much probability of that happening while riding in a car!
In fact, I once read that there are actually more serious brain
injuries from swimming - from anoxia in near-drownings - than there are
on bikes!
Will anyone tell you that? Of course not. Lovers of swimming are
smart enough to promote their activity as pleasant family fun,
requiring only moderate care, even though there are several times more
drownings than bike deaths each year. Cities luring tourists never,
ever suggest helmets when strolling around seeing the sights, even
though your risk of head injury per hour is higher than cycling. Car
manufacturers would send armies of lawyers to battle any hint that
riding in a car causes an unusual number of head injuries, even though
it's by FAR the number one cause.
Only in cycling do we have proponents of the activity disparaging the
activity. How foolish can we be?
Anyone just entering this discussion is welcome to see some of the data
and sources for what I say. Visit
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
