Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:

>> Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
>> than walking or driving in traffic,
>
>Again, thank you.

But walking or driving in traffic is plenty
dangerous, right? Can you admit that
much?

> As entertaining as when people hint at the opposite but give no
>statistics at all? That always makes me smile!

Here's one: the injury rate for cycling is more than
1,000 times the fatality rate.[1] I guess you won't
be posting that somewhat verifiable number
alongside your completely unverifiable Design
News fatality chart.

But note that I am not the one trying to prove
with statistics the "danger" of cycling. I am just
here to point out that your numbers are bogus.
As an engineer doesn't it embarass you to post
those bogus per-hour numbers?

Robert
[1] Based on known fatality stats and the US
Consumer Products Safety Commission's National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (a statistical
sampling from hundreds of ER's around the nation).

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 16 Dec 2004 17:48:45 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>Here's one: the injury rate for cycling is more than
>1,000 times the fatality rate.

For certain values of "injury", obviously.

And what is the severity ratio for cycling compared to other
activities, like walking alongside the road? In the UK, the latter is
much worse.

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

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Frank K wrote:
>
>>> Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous than walking or
>>> driving in traffic,
>>
>> Again, thank you.
>
> But walking or driving in traffic is plenty dangerous, right? Can you
> admit that much?

What do you mean by "plenty"? It's not dangerous enough that I, for one,
would ever consider wearing a helmet while doing these activities, even if
it were conclusively proved that helmets prevented 100% of head injuries.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote:
>
>
>>>Cycling is probably not appreciably more dangerous
>>>than walking or driving in traffic,
>>
>>Again, thank you.
>
>
> But walking or driving in traffic is plenty
> dangerous, right? Can you admit that
> much?

Don't be ridiculous! "Driving in traffic" and "walking near
traffic" are activities which hundreds of thousands of grandmothers do
every day, just in the USA!

These activities may terrify you, but they don't terrify most people.
In fact, most people, when asked "Isn't that dangerous?" would be amazed
anyone would think so.

>> As entertaining as when people hint at the opposite but give no
>>statistics at all? That always makes me smile!
>
>
> Here's one: the injury rate for cycling is more than
> 1,000 times the fatality rate.[1] I guess you won't
> be posting that somewhat verifiable number
> alongside your completely unverifiable Design
> News fatality chart.

In other words, only a tiny portion of injured cyclists are killed.
This is bad?

Keep in mind what I posted earlier: for the US, the number of ER visits
per year due to cycling is less than the total due to beds, chairs and
sofas. How bad can cycling be?


I admire your diligence in trying to find a scary number for cycling.
But I'm afraid you haven't yet succeeded.

IIRC* you have a pretty strong desire to "prove" that cycling is
dangerous. I've never understood why someone would be interested in
cycling enough to ride, and to post to this group, but also be
interested in disparaging cycling!

> As an engineer doesn't it embarass you to post
> those bogus per-hour numbers?

I'm curious about your qualifications, which you use to judge them
"bogus." Do you perhaps have a degree or extensive professional
experience in statistics?


*I can't be positive I've got the right guy. It's sometimes hard to
keep the anonymous posters straight.

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

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:

>> But walking or driving in traffic is plenty
>> dangerous, right? Can you admit that
>> much?
>
> Don't be ridiculous! "Driving in traffic" and "walking near
>traffic" are activities which hundreds of thousands of grandmothers do
>every day, just in the USA!

Exactly my point. Thank you.

My own grandmother, God rest her soul,
she couldn't make left turns, because she
couldn't see that far. So to turn left she
would make three right turns.

Are you arguing that the frequency of
grandmothers driving is an indication that
traffic is safe? It's a strange argument.

Do you think driving or walking near traffic
is dangerous, Frank?

>These activities may terrify you, but they don't
> terrify most people.

Understanding the danger of something, and
being terrified by it, are two very different
things. In fact the two hardly ever coincide.

>In fact, most people, when asked "Isn't that >dangerous?" would be amazed
>anyone would think so.

Is that how you judge things, by what most
people think? Should we take a vote to
decide whether cycling is dangerous?

>In other words, only a tiny portion of injured cyclists are killed.
>This is bad?

Oh no, it's GOOD!! You should post that stat
alongside your Design News car fire chart.
The rate of ER and outpatient visits is more than
1000 times the fatality rate. Very, very good.

>Keep in mind what I posted earlier: for the US, the number of ER visits
>per year due to cycling is less than the total due to beds, chairs and
>sofas.

That's an interesting stat. What's the cite? I want
to read about some wicked sofa accidents.

>IIRC* you have a pretty strong desire to "prove" that cycling is
>dangerous. I've never understood why someone would be interested in
>cycling enough to ride, and to post to this group, but also be
>interested in disparaging cycling!

How many hours did you ride today?

>I'm curious about your qualifications, which you use to judge them
>"bogus." Do you perhaps have a degree or extensive professional
>experience in statistics?

I took calculus once.

You don't need to know how to spell
your own name to see that those
per-hour numbers are BOGUS,
without basis.
Why do you keep foisting them off
on people? It seems a desperate
act. If you need those numbers to
prove your argument, you're in deep
trouble.

Robert

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote:
>
>>
>> "Driving in traffic" and "walking near
>>traffic" are activities which hundreds of thousands of grandmothers do
>>every day, just in the USA!
>
>
> Are you arguing that the frequency of
> grandmothers driving is an indication that
> traffic is safe? It's a strange argument.

Not at all. Society has no "official" standard for the word
"dangerous." All we have is a sort of consensus attitude, which is very
imprecise. Therefore, to gauge whether an activity is considered
"dangerous," it's helpful to examine who does it, how often, and how
they feel about it.

Not many grannies go hang gliding. Not many go bungee jumping. But
hundreds of thousands drive or walk around downtowns. I don't think
they - or many other people - consider these activities dangerous.
That's the consensus.

Of course, if we _did_ have an "official" standard for "dangerous,"
based on actual data, cycling wouldn't qualify either. Our problem as
cyclists is that here, the consensus is wrong. And this problem extends
even to r.b.misc posters who continually argue against the evidence!

> Is that how you judge things, by what most
> people think? Should we take a vote to
> decide whether cycling is dangerous?

If you do that, for God's sake don't do it after a helmet campaign. We
have enough trouble as it is, with people trying to protect us - for our
own good, of course.

>>Keep in mind what I posted earlier: for the US, the number of ER visits
>>per year due to cycling is less than the total due to beds, chairs and
>>sofas.
>
>
> That's an interesting stat. What's the cite? I want
> to read about some wicked sofa accidents.

Sorry, the source didn't go into detail. You'll have to satisfy your
craving for the gruesome elsewhere.

I found the numbers in the National Safety Council's _Accident Facts_,
1997 edition. First column's for 1995, taken from the CPSC's National
Electronic Injury Surveillance System.

You can also check the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Data from that
source was from 2000. I've put those in the second column.

Beds: 395,623 injuries in '95; 466,464 in '00
Tables: 321,828 311,208
Chairs: 276,745 298,894
rugs,carpets: 125,267 122,249
sofas, couches: 115,037 130,534

Again, bikes come in at about 560,000 to 590,000.

What's immediately apparent? You got it! The number of injuries due to
beds rose nearly 18% in just five years! That's an increase of over
14,000 per year! We can accept this tragedy no longer! We MUST find
some way to make beds safer! Why, if only ONE life can be saved...
<wring hands here>


>>I'm curious about your qualifications, which you use to judge them
>>"bogus." Do you perhaps have a degree or extensive professional
>>experience in statistics?
>
>
> I took calculus once.

Ah.

Ahem. Is that the extent of your expertise with numbers, then? (I
won't be impolite and ask your grade.)


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

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:

>Not many grannies go hang gliding. Not many go bungee jumping. But
>hundreds of thousands drive or walk around downtowns. I don't think
>they - or many other people - consider these activities dangerous.
>That's the consensus.

And I'm saying the consensus is wrong.

>> That's an interesting stat. What's the cite? I want
>> to read about some wicked sofa accidents.
>
>Sorry, the source didn't go into detail. You'll have to satisfy your
>craving for the gruesome elsewhere.

That's what I thought.

>> I took calculus once.
>
>Ah.
>
>Ahem. Is that the extent of your expertise with numbers, then? (I
>won't be impolite and ask your grade.)

Yeah, that's about the extent of my expertise
with numbers. If you have greater expertise,
do explain what your numbers are based on,
because right now they appear to be based on
JACK SQUAT.

Robert

 

[RogerDodger]

...Yeah, that's about the extent of my expertise
with numbers. If you have greater expertise,
do explain what your numbers are based on,
because right now they appear to be based on
JACK SQUAT.

Robert

Robert - you seem to be regressing back to the level of argument one might expect from a jumped up teenager - or perhaps that is what you actually are?

Roger

 

[R15757]

Roger asked:

>Robert - you seem to be regressing back to the level of argument one
>might expect from a jumped up teenager - or perhaps that is what you
>actually are?

A retarded teenager could see that those
per-hour numbers are based on JACK SQUAT.

Do you object to my terminology?

Robert

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

R15757 wrote:

> A retarded teenager could see that those
> per-hour numbers are based on JACK SQUAT.

Apparently not.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

RogerDodger wrote:

>
> Robert - you seem to be regressing back to the level of argument one
> might expect from a jumped up teenager - or perhaps that is what you
> actually are?

I hadn't thought about the "jumped up" part. He does sound chemically
enhanced, doesn't he?

Maybe I should stop replying until he's come down.

Perhaps when that happens, he'll go to _some_ reference source and post
some actual data, or post detailed reasons why the Statistical Abstract
of the United States is a terrible resource! ;-)



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