relative risk

Rich said:

Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative
risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be
able to put their hands on them, please.

There's a Department of Transport report,
which has been discussed on this list.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futureoftransport/chapter11/challenge.htm

I'm sure there are plenty of other stats available.

Quoted message said:

Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the
relative risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out
there will be able to put their hands on them, please.

<URL://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=
1&Rank=272>

"ScumOfTheRoad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich said:

Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the

relative

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

able to put their hands on them, please.

There's a Department of Transport report,
which has been discussed on this list.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futureoftransport/chapter11/challenge.htm

I'm sure there are plenty of other stats available.

Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture.
Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever
mode of transport they use.
Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car
mileage is on Motorways).
If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using
mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And
that is
before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Pete

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture.
Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever
mode of transport they use.
Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car
mileage is on Motorways).
If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using
mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And
that is
before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men
in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my
odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?

Juliette
--

Juliette said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture.
Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever
mode of transport they use.
Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car
mileage is on Motorways).
If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using
mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And
that is
before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men
in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my
odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ssd/surveys/national_travel_survey.asp

I guess it's from this.

My family was in the national food survey once. My brother was
persuaded by his girlfriend in the week that it was on that she wanted
to eat trifle sponges, so they went out to the corner shop to get them
and ate them on the way back. He was most embarassed when the surveyor
came round to check the diary, and the entry was checked up on.

"So, did you make a special journey to get the trifle sponges?"

"And where did you eat them?"

"On the way home" (eyebrows raise)

Etc, etc.

A

In message <[email hidden]>, Rich
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

My
organisation's H&S dept have just produced a guidance note for cycling on
business, and anyone reading it wouldn't ever cycle again, as it's just a
collection of the dangers, without putting them into context. Strangely
enough, they don't feel compelled to do a similar note for driving,
motorcycling or walking!

That's because there's nothing drivers (m/c's included) can do to reduce
the risks, since their accidents are always someone else's fault.

--
Sue ];(🙂

Ambrose Nankivell said:

"So, did you make a special journey to get the trifle sponges?"

"And where did you eat them?"

"On the way home" (eyebrows raise)

Munchies?

--
Peter Headland

Juliette said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture.
Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever
mode of transport they use.
Also cyclists are banned from using the safest roads (more than half car
mileage is on Motorways).
If you compare like with like (ie similar aged drivers and cyclists using
mainly urban roads) then the risk per mile is not all that different - And
that is
before you start looking into the risks imposed on other road users.

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Just as a matter of interest, how do they calculate mileages? Men
in suits don't come round to my house every January to inspect my
odometers, who's odometers are they inspecting?

Juliette
--

Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?

Roger

"Peter Owens" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Of course the raw stats only tell half the picture.
Typically cyclists tend to be young and male - high risk groups whatever
mode of transport they use.

I'm not arguing but find that surprising, based on my observations they
appear to be across the age spectrum but females are heavily outnumbered.
However, it appears to me to be generally youngish males who expose
themselves to most risk in traffic by bad roadcraft and of course it's
nearly all young males who engage in stunt type riding, downhillling and the
like, if their injuries are included in the total.
Which is a point, if a lad injures himself pratting about on a bike in the
park or say an off-road ride are their injuries included in the stats? These
activities are hardly likely to be engaged in by a cycle commuter.

Pete

Peter Owens said:

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Is this a spoof?
The photo of Blair and Mandleson is fake.

A casual study of this group indicates that the greatest
risk to cyclists is caused by clipless pedals, followed
by fishing line. How long before both are banned?

--
Eiron.

RogerDodger said:

Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd
hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the
denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark
estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable
to how long a piece of string is?

Roger

There was an article in the New Scientist a few years ago that compared the
sizes and relative abundance of string from cosmic string down to DNA and
came to the conclusion that the length of a piece of string is about a
meter.
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

RogerDodger said:

Yes - those non-existent odometer readings (guessed, I'd
hazard to guess - if you'll pardon the pun) that form the
denominator in the determination of relative risk...ballpark
estimation perhaps? How big is a ballpark - is it comparable
to how long a piece of string is?

There was an article in the New Scientist a few years ago that compared the
sizes and relative abundance of string from cosmic string down to DNA and
came to the conclusion that the length of a piece of string is about a
meter.

Right, so the men in suits issue pieces of string to randomly
selected cyclists and the cyclists have to say how many pieces of
string are need to cover the distance between them and the off-
licence? I wonder if the pieces of string are issued joined
together or if they're precut to the length of a piece of string.

Juliette
--

"Eiron" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Owens said:

A good reference - putting all the stats in context is:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Is this a spoof?

The first section is irony.

Quoted message said:

The photo of Blair and Mandleson is fake.

Indeed so - but it makes a serious point.
Logic follows:
1. Nobody goes round suggesting that walking is dangerous or that
protective headgear is required for pedestrians.
2. Indeed anybody who did so would instantly be identified as a complete
idiot -
to such an extent that we even recognise it as an obvious fake when
it is suggested that even someone with so liitle respect as a polititian
might be advocating such a thing.
3. Cycling a mile is safer than walking a mile.
4. Therefore anybody who suggests cycling is dangerous or requires
protective headger is ...

"Rich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Sorry about this, but I can't find the stats I've seen about the relative
risks of various modes of transport, but I know someone out there will be
able to put their hands on them, please.

If you have or can point me at stats comparing the risks of cycling compared
to other modes, in distance, time, and trip, I would be very grateful. My
organisation's H&S dept have just produced a guidance note for cycling on
business, and anyone reading it wouldn't ever cycle again, as it's just a
collection of the dangers, without putting them into context. Strangely
enough, they don't feel compelled to do a similar note for driving,
motorcycling or walking!

Cycling is 100% safe. Nobody EVER gets hurt.

So long as they don't wear a helmet. Apparently even looking at one in
a shop can be fatal.

Certain studies have indicated that merely holding the helmet in one's
hands can give a false sense of indestuctability such as attempting to
walk out of the shop without opening the door. Of course, if one is
still holding the said helmet, the increased mass may be enough to
exacerbate a mild bump on the head into the equivilent of being hit by
a medium sized asteroid travelling at 18000MPH.

Russell ;-)

In news:[email hidden],
Peter Headland <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

"So, did you make a special journey to get the trifle sponges?"

"And where did you eat them?"

"On the way home" (eyebrows raise)

Munchies?

No, just 16/17 year old experimentation with convention breaking.
Embarassing for my brother as he wasn't the one who thought that envelope
needed to be pushed, but he was the one who had to account for it. And
anyway, anything's embarassing for a teenager.

A

On 25 Sep 2004 15:44:48 -0700, [email hidden] (Russell) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is 100% safe. Nobody EVER gets hurt.

Well, it's safer per mile than walking, anyway.

Quoted message said:

So long as they don't wear a helmet. Apparently even looking at one in
a shop can be fatal.

Ah, the mark of a zealot: characterising opposition to [censored] as
opposition to their cherished beliefs.

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 Washington University

In message <[email hidden]>,
RogerDodger <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

How big
is a ballpark - is it comparable to how long a piece of string is?

A Google search produced this:

"Then there's the outfield. In an effort to create more excitement for
sparsely attended Puerto Rican league games, the fences were moved in 15
feet several years ago. The dimensions are just 315 feet down the lines,
360 to the power alleys and 398 to center. At least that's what it says
on the walls."

So the ballpark is roughly equivalent to a square 90 pieces of string on
a side.
However, the ballpark is foreign and probably not to be trusted.

--
Sue ];(🙂

What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking