F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
R15757 wrote:
> Frank K wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than
>>
>>one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all
>>recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it
>>seems to _you_.
>
>
> Yes, that's what it seems to _me_.
Is anyone else impressed with that information source? ;-)
>>And you say "To me, your numbers appear to be based on JACK SQUAT."
>>Of course, some readers may be confused about how "It seems to YOU"
>>differs from "based on JACK SQUAT."
>
>
> Yeah, especially if they possess Krygowski-like
> reading comprehension skills. As I wrote, my
> "numbers" (I didn't really give any)...
That says volumes, Robert.
> Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans
> ride 40 hours per year.
What I am _actually_ doing is quoting the data that the National Safety
Council posts on its web page. They determine participation in sports
and activities by referring to national surveys, among other things.
They determine fatalities from the national Fatal Accident Reporting
System. They determine ER visits from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System. These are the best numbers available in this country.
And the numbers they come up with are closely matched by similar
agencies in other countries who use different tactics.
Once again, this data indicates that the number of ER visits due to
bicycling are only a little higher than the number due to beds and
bedclothes. The data indicates that cycling causes far fewer ER visits
per hour than common, low risk activities, and that the risk of fatality
is even lower.
In other words, although you may hate to hear it, cycling is really very
safe!
I understand that your prejudice makes you detest this data. But at
this point, I'd say it's up to YOU to prove that the data collected by
these national experts - and by experts in other countires - is faulty.
So stop with the desparate protestation, Robert. And stop trying to get
_me_ to prove the National Safety Council's figures are wrong. If you
want to show cycling is horribly dangerous, it's time _you_ came up with
some real numbers - some numbers that have been accepted by someone
other than a "lowly bicycle messenger," as you describe yourself.
And as you poetically put it, those numbers should be based on something
other than "jack squat."
Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
> Frank K wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, I see. It seems to _you_ that commuting would be no more than
>>
>>one billion hours. And it seems to _you_ that all kids and all
>>recreational riding would total another billion hours. That's what it
>>seems to _you_.
>
>
> Yes, that's what it seems to _me_.
Is anyone else impressed with that information source? ;-)
>>And you say "To me, your numbers appear to be based on JACK SQUAT."
>>Of course, some readers may be confused about how "It seems to YOU"
>>differs from "based on JACK SQUAT."
>
>
> Yeah, especially if they possess Krygowski-like
> reading comprehension skills. As I wrote, my
> "numbers" (I didn't really give any)...
That says volumes, Robert.
> Right now you are claiming 72 million Americans
> ride 40 hours per year.
What I am _actually_ doing is quoting the data that the National Safety
Council posts on its web page. They determine participation in sports
and activities by referring to national surveys, among other things.
They determine fatalities from the national Fatal Accident Reporting
System. They determine ER visits from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System. These are the best numbers available in this country.
And the numbers they come up with are closely matched by similar
agencies in other countries who use different tactics.
Once again, this data indicates that the number of ER visits due to
bicycling are only a little higher than the number due to beds and
bedclothes. The data indicates that cycling causes far fewer ER visits
per hour than common, low risk activities, and that the risk of fatality
is even lower.
In other words, although you may hate to hear it, cycling is really very
safe!
I understand that your prejudice makes you detest this data. But at
this point, I'd say it's up to YOU to prove that the data collected by
these national experts - and by experts in other countires - is faulty.
So stop with the desparate protestation, Robert. And stop trying to get
_me_ to prove the National Safety Council's figures are wrong. If you
want to show cycling is horribly dangerous, it's time _you_ came up with
some real numbers - some numbers that have been accepted by someone
other than a "lowly bicycle messenger," as you describe yourself.
And as you poetically put it, those numbers should be based on something
other than "jack squat."
Cycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]