Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

E

Erik Freitag

Guest
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:12:02 +0000, R15757 wrote:

>
> Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
> than walking or driving in traffic, but it's good
> entertainment when folks try to prove with
> accident statistics that cycling is "not dangerous."
> But if Frank has some real numbers I'd love
> to see them.

OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:14:06 -0800, Erik Freitag <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:12:02 +0000, R15757 wrote:
>
>>
>> Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
>> than walking or driving in traffic, but it's good
>> entertainment when folks try to prove with
>> accident statistics that cycling is "not dangerous."
>> But if Frank has some real numbers I'd love
>> to see them.

>
> OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

Well if all my bikes broke down I guess I would just have to buy a
para-glider and test some more 'statistics'. Actually I have been
hankering towards one of those powered gliders (ultra-lites) since
a guy keeps buzzing me while I am riding. I think this guy spends
all his free time at 500 feet over the ground, but it sure looks
like a good way to 'not' exercise.

--
Bill (?) Baka

Erik Freitag wrote:

>OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
I will tell you whether or not cycling is

Robert

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:35:25 +0000, R15757 wrote:

> Erik Freitag wrote:
>
>>OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

>
> Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
> I will tell you whether or not cycling is
> dangerous based on your definition.

Oh no you don't. You give YOUR definition of "dangerous" and will tell you.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:32:28 -0800, Erik Freitag <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:35:25 +0000, R15757 wrote:
>
>> Erik Freitag wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

>>
>> Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
>> I will tell you whether or not cycling is
>> dangerous based on your definition.

>
> Oh no you don't. You give YOUR definition of "dangerous" and will tell
> you.

Breathing downhill of a chemical plant like union carbide in India.
Looking at an atomic bomb blast without sunglasses (may not matter if you
are standing too close).
Standing where a meteor is predicted to hit ("I want to see it.").
Going over Niagara falls in a barrel ("It's OK, it's padded." "Like the
room you may need.").
Playing chicken with a freight train.
Walking in NY central park at 3:00 A.M.
That is only a start...

--
Bill (?) Baka

R15757 wrote:

> Erik Freitag wrote:
>
>
>>OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

>
>
> Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
> I will tell you whether or not cycling is
> dangerous based on your definition.

Hmm. Wait, folks. This is a rare opportunity.

We could actually make some headway if we settled on a practical
definition of "dangerous."

First, can we agree that injuries that did heal, or would have healed
with only home treatment are inconsequential and shouldn't enter into
the discussion? I hope so.

Second, I think we need to eliminate "near misses." Some folks claim
their near misses were terrifying, but terror is in the eyes of the
beholder, who may have very poor judgement.

Moving beyond those obvious exclusions, I think we cannot use a trip to
the ER as a criterion, for this reason: the necessity of such a trip is
usually judged not by competent medical personnel, but by the injured
party, or his parents or buddies. I have a relative who's an ER doctor,
and he treats mostly very minor injuries, plus a lot of things like
fevers, etc. There are many, many ER visits that aren't represented on
the the TV shows.

We could look at injuries based on an Abbreviated Injury Severity scale,
and reject anything at AIS #1 (or less). But I'm afraid getting data
that detailed is going to be difficult.

So I'm leaning toward looking at hospitalizations and fatalities. And
I'm strongly in favor of doing it on a _comparative_ basis. America's a
big country, and I'm very tired of fearmongers quoting big numbers for
bicycling, with no basis for comparison.

(Example: the National Safety Council says cycling causes 560,000 ER
visits per year. Scary - until you realize, they say beds cause 400,000
ER visits per year, and chairs and sofas cause another 390,000! So your
bike is a _little_ more dangerous than your bed, but safer than all the

So how about hospitalizations or fatalities per hour, on a comparative
scale? And as a footnote, I'd like to see how many years of various
activities - including cycling - would be needed to get to, say, a 50%
chance of a serious injury.

What do you say?

(Of course, whether anyone can find such data is another matter.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:48:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

> R15757 wrote:
>
>> Erik Freitag wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OK. Your turn - prove cycling is dangerous.

>>
>>
>> Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
>> I will tell you whether or not cycling is dangerous based on your
>> definition.

>
> Hmm. Wait, folks. This is a rare opportunity.
>
> We could actually make some headway if we settled on a practical
> definition of "dangerous."
>
>
> First, can we agree that injuries that did heal, or would have healed
> with only home treatment are inconsequential and shouldn't enter into
> the discussion? I hope so.

A lawyer might disagree.
>
> Second, I think we need to eliminate "near misses." Some folks claim
> their near misses were terrifying, but terror is in the eyes of the
> beholder, who may have very poor judgement.

Sue for post traumatic near miss trauma.
>
> Moving beyond those obvious exclusions, I think we cannot use a trip to
> the ER as a criterion, for this reason: the necessity of such a trip is
> usually judged not by competent medical personnel, but by the injured
> party, or his parents or buddies. I have a relative who's an ER doctor,
> and he treats mostly very minor injuries, plus a lot of things like
> fevers, etc. There are many, many ER visits that aren't represented on
> the the TV shows.
>
> We could look at injuries based on an Abbreviated Injury Severity scale,
> and reject anything at AIS #1 (or less). But I'm afraid getting data
> that detailed is going to be difficult.
>
> So I'm leaning toward looking at hospitalizations and fatalities. And
> I'm strongly in favor of doing it on a _comparative_ basis. America's a
> big country, and I'm very tired of fearmongers quoting big numbers for
> bicycling, with no basis for comparison.
>
> (Example: the National Safety Council says cycling causes 560,000 ER
> visits per year. Scary - until you realize, they say beds cause 400,000
> ER visits per year, and chairs and sofas cause another 390,000! So your
> bike is a _little_ more dangerous than your bed, but safer than all the
> soft furniture in your house!)
>

That is still only about one person in 500. With some of the dumb stunts
I see kids doing I am surprised it isn't more. Not bicycles, but this
year it is those stupid scooter boards with motors on them. 12 year olds
and gas motored scooters don't mix well.

> So how about hospitalizations or fatalities per hour, on a comparative
> scale? And as a footnote, I'd like to see how many years of various
> activities - including cycling - would be needed to get to, say, a 50%
> chance of a serious injury.
>
> What do you say?
>
> (Of course, whether anyone can find such data is another matter.)
>

Barring collisions with larger moving objects like cars, trucks, buses,
etc.
I think walking would be more dangerous according to the stats. More people
break a leg walking than biking, or fall and have a head injury on ice. In
fact I think more people are killed walking than biking anyway, due to the
use of cell phones and ignoring their surroundings. Cycling is generally
a sport, and done by choice, which usually involves not yakking on the cell
phone. People walking, talking, and stepping into traffic, or driving into
a head on should seem 'to me' to indicate that cell phones require helmets.
My sideways take on it all. Cell phone users need helmets, and propeller
beanies on them.

--
Bill (?) Baka

Frank K. wrote:

>First, can we agree that injuries that did heal, or would have healed
>with only home treatment are inconsequential and shouldn't enter into
>the discussion? I hope so.

Mmm, I don't think so. It has been my
experience and that of many of my friends
that we have suffered some fairly significant
injuries for which we have never sought
treatment. I fell on the ice and ripped my
shoulder but good. Eighteen months before
I could lift my arm over my head or sleep
on that side. Anyone with decent insurance
would have gone to the doctor. It may not
have been a "serious" injury, but it certainly
was a large part of my life for 18 months,
zero medical treatment. This is more
common than you think, a very typical
situation for everyday cyclists.

So I think you have it backward when you claim
that the number of ER visits gives an inflated
view of overall injuries. I believe the number of
significant injuries among cyclists is much
greater than the numbers would suggest, because
so many cyclists won't seek treatment.

Also, there are about a half million outpatients
visiting doctors for cycling injuries every year in
the US. While some of the ER visits are certainly
over-frightened parents, the outpatient visits
are not.

>Second, I think we need to eliminate "near misses."

Sure.

>We could look at injuries based on an Abbreviated Injury Severity scale,
>
>and reject anything at AIS #1 (or less). But I'm afraid getting data
>that detailed is going to be difficult.

Maybe not, the NEISS has some fairly detailed
information.

So what is a "serious injury?" Is a collarbone
break a serious injury? How bout my shoulder
injury which handicapped me for 18 months?
How 'bout when I almost ripped my pinky
finger off in a wreck? Serious is in the eye
of the beholder.

>So how about hospitalizations or fatalities per hour, on a comparative
>scale?

Sure that would be great wouldn't it, if we
could somehow get those numbers.

>And as a footnote, I'd like to see how many years of various
>activities - including cycling - would be needed to get to, say, a 50%
>chance of a serious injury.

"How many years..." What does that mean?
You would obviously have to use hours (or at
least miles) as a parameter.

>(Of course, whether anyone can find such data is another matter.)

The data doesn't exist.

My point is not so much that "cycling is
dangerous" or "not dangerous" but that it
is impossible to prove one way or the other
with available accident/injury statistics.

Robert

Erik Freitag wrote:

>> Give me your definition of "dangerous" and
>> I will tell you whether or not cycling is
>> dangerous based on your definition.

>
>Oh no you don't. You give YOUR definition of
> "dangerous" and will tell you.

Don't be scared, it's a fun game. Try this:

A "dangerous" activity is one which could quite
possible result in serious injury.

Is cycling dangerous?

Or this: A "dangerous" activity is one which
very often results in serious injury.

Is cycling dangerous?

Or this: An activity can be deemed "dangerous"
if it requires constant focus from its
participants.

Is cycling dangerous?

I mean seriously man, IS CYCLING DANGEROUS??!!
I really wanna know.

Robert

On 16 Dec 2004 17:03:14 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>I mean seriously man, IS CYCLING DANGEROUS??!!

Nice try: I see that you are assuming that there is an absolute
definition of the level of risk which qualifies as dangerous. Do
please let us know what that level might be.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K. wrote:
>
>
>>First, can we agree that injuries that did heal, or would have healed
>>with only home treatment are inconsequential and shouldn't enter into
>>the discussion? I hope so.

>
>
> Mmm, I don't think so. It has been my
> experience and that of many of my friends
> that we have suffered some fairly significant
> injuries for which we have never sought
> treatment. I fell on the ice and ripped my
> shoulder but good. Eighteen months before
> I could lift my arm over my head or sleep
> on that side. Anyone with decent insurance
> would have gone to the doctor. It may not
> have been a "serious" injury, but it certainly
> was a large part of my life for 18 months,
> zero medical treatment. This is more
> common than you think, a very typical
> situation for everyday cyclists.
>
> So I think you have it backward when you claim
> that the number of ER visits gives an inflated
> view of overall injuries.

Actually, you have it backward when you claim I said that. My point was
simply that ER visit counts are unreliable, for the reasons I gave.

I believe the number of
> significant injuries among cyclists is much
> greater than the numbers would suggest, because
> so many cyclists won't seek treatment.

Hmmm. It sounds to me like you're once again making a false assumption
that cycling is unique this way. Do you really think it's any different
for jogging? For playing basketball? For _any_ activity?

> So what is a "serious injury?" Is a collarbone
> break a serious injury? How bout my shoulder
> injury which handicapped me for 18 months?
> How 'bout when I almost ripped my pinky
> finger off in a wreck? Serious is in the eye
> of the beholder.

Yes, the question of a "serious" injury is intimately connected to the
question of what's "dangerous." And judging by this exchange, I guess
we're unlikely to get agreement even there. That is, there will be
handwringers who will say a torn fingernail is "serious"!

Regarding your specific questions: Yes, I'd say a collarbone break
should be classed as serious. Most are merely stabilized and sent home,
but some require much more attention, and the consequences of ignoring a
bad break can be serious in ways no one would dispute.

Your shoulder was not serious. Sorry it hurt, but it sounds like it
fell into the grey area of soft tissue injury that every teenage kid
endures. Or at least, every teenage kid that does what I did as a
teenager. And it did, apparently, heal with no medical attention.

"Almost ripping your finger off in a wreck" likewise sounds
unimpressive. From age 6 to about 13, my son used to come into the
house with similar tales about every four days. I think it was part of
trying to sound macho.

>>So how about hospitalizations or fatalities per hour, on a comparative
>>scale?

>
> Sure that would be great wouldn't it, if we
> could somehow get those numbers.

I've read papers that either had such numbers, or alluded to such
numbers on a comparative basis. I don't think you'd like them, however;
they tended to make cycling sound relatively safe!

>>And as a footnote, I'd like to see how many years of various
>>activities - including cycling - would be needed to get to, say, a 50%
>>chance of a serious injury.

>
> "How many years..." What does that mean?
> You would obviously have to use hours (or at
> least miles) as a parameter.

The "how many years" could be stated in terms of the average person's
participation.

As an example: one paper I've mentioned before pointed out, based on
survey data, that League of American Bicyclist members ride an average
of 11 years between crashes that do a mere \$50 damage. IIRC, you (or
some other anonymous poster with a similar handle) didn't like that
information either!

> The data doesn't exist.

Care to prove that negative?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

R15757 wrote:

>
>
> A "dangerous" activity is one which could quite
> possible result in serious injury.
>
> Is cycling dangerous?
>
> Or this: A "dangerous" activity is one which
> very often results in serious injury.
>
> Is cycling dangerous?
>
> Or this: An activity can be deemed "dangerous"
> if it requires constant focus from its
> participants.
>
> Is cycling dangerous?
>
> I mean seriously man, IS CYCLING DANGEROUS??!!
> I really wanna know.

This is starting to read like a Three Stooges script.

Happy?

(I thought not.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank K wrote:

>Actually, you have it backward when you claim I said that. My point was
>
>simply that ER visit counts are unreliable, for the >reasons I gave.

the reliability of ER numbers. You say
"ER visit counts are unreliable" because the
numbers do not support your position. In fact
the ER visit count is very reliable, based on
years' worth of daily data from literally hundreds
of ERs.

And your per-hour numbers are based
on what?

>because
>> so many cyclists won't seek treatment.

>
>Hmmm. It sounds to me like you're once again making a false assumption
>
>that cycling is unique this way. Do you really think it's any different
>
>for jogging? For playing basketball? For _any_ activity?

Nope. Simply pointing out that the ER numbers
are a drop in the bucket of total injuries.
Would seem to be important component of
overall danger.

>Your shoulder was not serious. Sorry it hurt, but it sounds like it
>fell into the grey area of soft tissue injury that every teenage kid
>endures. Or at least, every teenage kid that does what I did as a
>teenager. And it did, apparently, heal with no medical >attention.

It did more than "hurt." It was a debilitating
injury. But I agree it was not serious in the
grand scheme of things.

>"Almost ripping your finger off in a wreck" likewise sounds
>unimpressive. From age 6 to about 13, my son used to come into the
>house with similar tales about every four days. I think it was part of
>
>trying to sound macho.

I think my mangled finger would
disagree with you.

>>>So how about hospitalizations or fatalities per hour, on a comparative

>
>>>scale?

>>
>> Sure that would be great wouldn't it, if we
>> could somehow get those numbers.

>
>I've read papers that either had such numbers, or alluded to such
>numbers on a comparative basis.

Oh do tell. How many billion hours does America
ride each year? And how did these wondrous
statisticians arrive at this figure?

>>>And as a footnote, I'd like to see how many years of various
>>>activities - including cycling - would be needed to get to, say, a 50%

>
>>>chance of a serious injury.

>>
>> "How many years..." What does that mean?
>> You would obviously have to use hours (or at
>> least miles) as a parameter.

>
>The "how many years" could be stated in terms of the average person's
>participation.

And how many hours does the average person
ride I wonder.

>As an example: one paper I've mentioned before pointed out, based on
>survey data, that League of American Bicyclist members ride an average
>of 11 years between crashes that do a mere \$50 damage. IIRC, you (or
>some other anonymous poster with a similar handle) didn't like that
>information either!

Actually I had great fun with that info.
I pointed out that if I crashed with similar
frequency as these supposedly experienced
and well-trained Gandolfs of cycling, I would already have suffered more than
SEVEN "serious
accidents" (by the parameters of the study) in
my short career. And I wondered what is
responsible for their poor safety rating?
Perhaps a myopic reliance on the Vehicular
Cycling Principle.

>> The data doesn't exist.

>
>Care to prove that negative?

Hey if it's there I would truly love to
see it.

R

R15757 wrote:

> the reliability of ER numbers. You say
> "ER visit counts are unreliable" because the
> numbers do not support your position. In fact
> the ER visit count is very reliable, based on
> years' worth of daily data from literally hundreds
> of ERs.

True, but the ER numbers don't support his position, hence despite the
fact that they are very reliable, he has to say that they are unreliable.

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, you have it backward when you claim I said that. My point was
>>
>>simply that ER visit counts are unreliable, for the >reasons I gave.

>
>
> the reliability of ER numbers. You say
> "ER visit counts are unreliable" because the
> numbers do not support your position. In fact
> the ER visit count is very reliable, based on
> years' worth of daily data from literally hundreds
> of ERs.

You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding me.

The _count_ of ER visits is quite reliable. The _necessity_ of ER
visits is not nearly so reliable.

Why? Because whether a person goes to the ER depends on many, many
factors besides the apparent seriousness of the injury. Some of those
factors include the degree of medical coverage (no coverage means less
chance of going); the distance to the ER (100 miles away? It'll heal.);
the age of the person (you're young, it'll heal); the person's own
attitude toward risk ("My pinky! I'll never play violin again!!!!")

The most frequently quoted study of helmet effectiveness was obviously
ruined by this effect. Those wearing helmets were much more likely to
check into the ER than the general population, as shown by a comparison
of percent helmeted in the study population versus street counts.
People who make their kids wear helmets are more likely to take their
kids to the ER "just to be sure." So presentation at an ER is not a
reliable gage of injury severity.

>
>>Your shoulder was not serious. Sorry it hurt, but it sounds like it
>>fell into the grey area of soft tissue injury that every teenage kid
>>endures. Or at least, every teenage kid that does what I did as a
>>teenager. And it did, apparently, heal with no medical >attention.

>
>
> It did more than "hurt." It was a debilitating
> injury. But I agree it was not serious in the
> grand scheme of things.

Good. We agree.

>
>>"Almost ripping your finger off in a wreck" likewise sounds
>>unimpressive. From age 6 to about 13, my son used to come into the
>>house with similar tales about every four days. I think it was part of
>>
>>trying to sound macho.

>
>
> I think my mangled finger would
> disagree with you.

He'd have said the same thing. He'd have shown it to all his
buddies, too!

>
>
>>As an example: one paper I've mentioned before pointed out, based on
>>survey data, that League of American Bicyclist members ride an average
>>of 11 years between crashes that do a mere \$50 damage. IIRC, you (or
>>some other anonymous poster with a similar handle) didn't like that
>>information either!

>
>
> Actually I had great fun with that info.
> I pointed out that if I crashed with similar
> frequency as these supposedly experienced
> and well-trained Gandolfs of cycling, I would already have suffered more than
> SEVEN "serious
> accidents" (by the parameters of the study) in
> my short career.

.... if you call \$50 damage "serious."

I was present for a perfectly similar accident. Club ride, passing
slowly through a little village with narrow streets. One guy's front
wheel dropped off the pavement edge. Of course, there's the usual
"can't steer to balance" problem, and he came off the bike. Not even a
complete fall - he ended up standing - but his front wheel was tacoed.

Using a tree, I popped it back into rideable shape, but being a careful
sort, he soon replaced it.

Serious? In my book, it was probably a waste of money.

And I wondered what is
> responsible for their poor safety rating?
> Perhaps a myopic reliance on the Vehicular
> Cycling Principle.

<sigh> I've never seen a consise statement of your alternative
principle. Possibly "Be afraid. Be very afraid" ?

No thanks.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> R15757 wrote:
>
>> the reliability of ER numbers. You say
>> "ER visit counts are unreliable" because the
>> numbers do not support your position. In fact
>> the ER visit count is very reliable, based on years' worth of daily
>> data from literally hundreds of ERs.

>
>
> True, but the ER numbers don't support his position, hence despite the
> fact that they are very reliable, he has to say that they are unreliable.
>

Actually, the ER numbers do support my position. As examples:
National Safety Council figures (Accident Facts, 1997) on ER-treated
injuries per "participant" say cycling (8094 injuries per million
participants) is safer than basketball (23,000), touch and tackle
football (19,000), and soccer (13,000).

Now it's true their figures claim cycling is more dangerous than, say,
ice skating (5286) or roller skating (4674). HOWEVER:

A look at their footnotes says that to be counted as a "participant" in
a sport or activity, a person had to participate more than once per
year, _except_ for cycling and swimming, for which they required more
than 5 times per year. In other words, there's a five-to-one difference
in how they count participants!

It's not realistic, I suppose, to assume five times more cyclists than
they claim (that is, five times more than 72.5 million). But there _is_
a disadvantage to cycling built into their data; and if we did divide
cycling's injury per participant level by five, it would be safer than
those rugged sports of fishing and golf!

Again: cycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

And again: Scharf gives no data at all. He simply insults the data
providers.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank K wrote in part:

>Actually, the ER numbers do support my position. As examples:
>National Safety Council figures (Accident Facts, 1997) on ER-treated
>injuries per "participant" say cycling (8094 injuries per million
>participants) is safer than basketball (23,000), touch and tackle
>football (19,000), and soccer (13,000).

Why not pull a per-hour number out of your ass
instead? That would make cycling look even
safer I would think?

>It's not realistic, I suppose, to assume five times more cyclists than
>they claim (that is, five times more than 72.5 million).

72.5 million???!!! That number had to hurt
when somebody pulled it out of their ass!

You must also know how many hours on average
each of these 72.5 million participants rides
each year? What is the number. You've got lots
of crazy numbers up there.

Wow, 72.5 million. That's about double most of
the estimates of actual participants I've seen.
But give or take 40 million or so right? I guess
72.5 million is close enough. Sounds official:
72.5 million. I like it.

>Again: cycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
>is.

Cycling in traffic demands constant focus
or you're going to get hurt in a most
unsavory fashion.

Robert

R15757 wrote:
> Frank K wrote in part:
>
>
>>Actually, the ER numbers do support my position. As examples:
>>National Safety Council figures (Accident Facts, 1997) on ER-treated
>>injuries per "participant" say cycling (8094 injuries per million
>>participants) is safer than basketball (23,000), touch and tackle
>>football (19,000), and soccer (13,000).

>
>
> Why not pull a per-hour number out of your ass
> instead? That would make cycling look even
> safer I would think?

You have a real problem with language, don't you? That often indicates
a problem with thought. You seem to be channeling a gutter-bred
16-year-old, both in language and thought.

I'm giving numbers that originated in the CPSC's National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System. It's the best data I know of.

But yes, per-hour data probably _would_ make cycling look even safer.
If you care to post that data, stop spewing and do it.

>
>
>>It's not realistic, I suppose, to assume five times more cyclists than
>>they claim (that is, five times more than 72.5 million).

>
>
> 72.5 million???!!! That number had to hurt
> when somebody pulled it out of their ass!

It's the number the National Safety Council uses. I've taken it from
their "Accident Facts" publication. And FWIW, the National Safety
Council seems to go out of its way to make _everything_ sound as
dangerous as possible. Perhaps you should take this up with them. Tell
them they're not scaring people enough to suit you.

> Wow, 72.5 million. That's about double most of
> the estimates of actual participants I've seen.

I don't doubt that estimates vary. But you haven't told us what orifice

>>Again: cycling is not very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it
>>is.

>
>
> Cycling in traffic demands constant focus
> or you're going to get hurt in a most
> unsavory fashion.

I know you're afraid of traffic. But harping on the obvious need for
attention is NOT a rebuttal of my statement.

Don't use your fear of traffic to disparage cycling.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank K wrote:

>You have a real problem with language, don't you? That often indicates
>
>a problem with thought. You seem to be channeling a gutter-bred
>16-year-old, both in language and thought.

Oh STFU.

>I'm giving numbers that originated in the CPSC's National Electronic
>Injury Surveillance System. It's the best data I know of.

The CPSC gave per-hour numbers? Not that
I'm aware of.

>But yes, per-hour data probably _would_ make cycling look even safer.
>If you care to post that data, stop spewing and do it.

No such "data" exists. Didn't stop you from

>> 72.5 million???!!! That number had to hurt
>> when somebody pulled it out of their ass!

>
>It's the number the National Safety Council uses.

Ah, close enough for govt. work.

> I've taken it from
>their "Accident Facts" publication.

Well, it has the word "Facts" right in the title!
Must be good!

>I don't doubt that estimates vary.

Vary! Yeah, they vary all right, by about
40 or 50 million apparently. But what's
40 million? Big deal. So what if this minor
imperfection makes cycling injuries look less
than half as frequent as they really are.

>I know you're afraid of traffic. But harping on the obvious need for
>attention is NOT a rebuttal of my statement.

Why is there an "obvious need for attention?"
It is disconcerting that you would on the one
hand claim cycling is not dangerous, while on
the other hand you say that not only is there
a need for attention, but this need is obvious..

>Don't use your fear of traffic to disparage cycling.

To the contrary, I use my fear of traffic
to CONTINUE cycling. How many hours
did you ride today? This "disparage cycling"
**** is hard to take from someone who
probably has his bike hanging from a hook
in the garage all winter.

Robert

R15757 wrote:

> Wow, 72.5 million. That's about double most of
> the estimates of actual participants I've seen.
> But give or take 40 million or so right?

The number of participants of bicycling, or the various other activities
is irrelevant, as is how many of those participants in other activities
ended up in the ER.

The questions to be asked are the following:

1. Does a bicycle helmet protect against, and reduce the severity of,
injuries to bicyclists who are involved in an accident where an impact

2. Do such accidents occur frequently enough to worry about?

The answer the first question is an unequivocal yes. No person who has
looked at the relevant studies can deny this.

The answer to the second question is not easily answered, as each person
has a different tolerance for the risk level they will accept.

You can repeat the same exercise for other activities.

> I guess
> 72.5 million is close enough. Sounds official:
> 72.5 million. I like it.

I think that 72.539 million is more accurate.

It's like when you're haggling over the price of a new car. You want to
offer a very precise amount that makes the salesperson believe that
you've arrived at this figure via some very complex formula based on the
invoice price, the actual dealer cost (which is very different than
invoice), a certain percentage of dealer profit over the dealer cost,
etc. Never offer "\$18,000," offer "\$18,037." This gets them on the
defensive, desperately trying to get you to explain how you arrived at
that figure, so they can prove to you that they'd lose money if they
sold it to you at this price.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

F
Replies
44
Views
1K
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
R
Replies
1
Views
321
Frank Krygowski
F
R
Replies
10
Views
389
Frank Krygowski
F
J
Replies
0
Views
365
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
S
Replies
19
Views
730
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
S
Replies
42
Views
1K
Steven M. Scharf
S
C
Replies
1K
Views
30K
R
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
989