Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Erik Freitag, Dec 15, 2004.

  1. Erik Freitag

    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.
     
    Tags:


  2. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    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
     
  3. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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.

    Robert
     
  4. Erik Freitag

    Erik Freitag Guest

    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.
     
  5. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    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
     
  6. 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
    soft furniture in your house!)

    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]
     
  7. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    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
     
  8. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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
     
  9. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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
     
  10. 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
     
  11. 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]
     
  12. 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.

    But the answer to your question is: No!

    Happy?




    (I thought not.)


    --
    --------------------+
    Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
    replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
     
  13. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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.


    You are talking out your ass about
    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
     
  14. R15757 wrote:

    > You are talking out your ass about
    > 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.
     
  15. 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.

    >
    >
    > You are talking out your ass about
    > 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]
     
  16. Steven M. Scharf wrote:

    > R15757 wrote:
    >
    >> You are talking out your ass about
    >> 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]
     
  17. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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
     
  18. 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
    your estimates come from.


    >>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]
     
  19. R15757

    R15757 Guest

    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
    posting some made-up numbers though.

    >> 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"
    crap is hard to take from someone who
    probably has his bike hanging from a hook
    in the garage all winter.

    Robert
     
  20. 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
    to the head occurs?

    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
     
Loading...
Loading...