<
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Aug 31, 12:06 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 30, 10:29 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > Most swimming in the US happens during three months of the year,
>> >> > too.
>> >> > And it's much more dangerous than cycling, both in terms of total
>> >> > fatalities and in terms of per-hour fatalities. See
>> >> >http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>>
>> >> That stats are per hour. I and most people will spend more time per
>> >> bike
>> >> trip than per swimming trip. I don't think I've ever swum for more
>> >> than
>> >> an
>> >> hour at a time, but last night I bicycled for three hours straight.
>>
>> > Look at their per-hour estimates for riding or driving passenger
>> > cars. How much time do you spend driving?
>>
>> That's exactly what I object to. The stats are tabulated to make
>> bicycling
>> look safer.
>
> You're completely wrong once again.
>
> That table or comparative risks per hour was assembled by the largest
> risk consulting firm in the country. It first appeared in an
> automotive trade magazine, in an article discussing fires within
> cars. It was in no way intended to promote bicycling - or domestic
> airlines, or hunting, or any of the activities that are safer than
> riding in motor vehicles. It simply gives the numbers as they are.
>
> If you don't like that per-hour data, produce some of your own. (I
> have more, but I'm sure you'll dislike it, since it also disproves
> your claims.)
>
My claim, as you call it, is that bicycling is pretty dangerous and
unforgiving. Is serving with the US military in Iraq dangerous? Most people
would say it is. In the same period of time as the Iraq war, the same number
of people have been killed here in the USA bicycling. I don't have a number
for how many people bicycle as opposed to how many serve in Iraq, but it
probably would be interesting numbers especially when you consider most
bicycling happens during three months of the year whereas fighting in Iraq
is pretty much all year and cyclists in the USA are a small minority.
2) Bicycyles offer no protection in an accident. Cars do. Most people have
at least a few fender benders during their lifetimes driving their cars. On
a bicycle those same fender bender speed accidents can easily turn fatal,
hence bicyling in traffic is unforgiving.
3) Cyclists have little control over dangerous conditions. - There's no way
to know when the next drunk or incompetent will come up behind you in a 3000
pound vehicle. There's no way to know what the drivers of same vehicles will
do. Their actions can seem predictable at times, but there are always
anomalies. It only takes one anomaly to get a bicyclist killed. There's no
way to control the speed of motorists. There's no way to control the
aggression level of motorists. It's easier and more likely that a motorist
will have a weapon like a bat or tire iron on board. Who wants to ride with
a tire iron? The effect of bad drivers on a cyclist can be to aggravate the
cyclist to the point of rage, which can turn verbal sparring into deadly
combat.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07236/811824-94.stm
4) A dog can kill a bicyclist just by running out and getting in the
cyclist's path. A car can also loose control, but if a car runs the animal
over, there's very little chance the motorist will flip out of his
windshield and split his head open on the pavement. The presence of dogs and
actions of dogs are like human actions - usually predictable but
occasionally unpredicatable. Deer can also be a hazard, both live and dead
deer. A dead carcass on the side of the road at night can result in a fall,
death, or unconsciousness. Laying in the road unconscious at night is
definitely very high risk.
Bicycle design hasn't changed much since 1909. Cars have made a lot of
changes and cars are inspected for safety in most states. Cars have turn
signals and brake lights. Bikes don't. Cars have air bags. Bikes don't. Cars
have good headlights and their candlepower is regulated. Bike shops will
sell you any piece of **** and call it a headlight.
My girlfriend got hit by a car in broad daylight about 35 years ago. She
almost lost her life and later her leg, but she still rides today. She has
been in constant pain for 35 years though and that situation will never
change. Downhill skiing isn't really possible for her because of knee
damage. Many other activities and actions, quite ordinary things really, are
also prohibited. She's maimed for life at a young age because of a slow
speed accident involving her bike and a car that didn't even stop. The
driver was never caught or charged even though there were a lot of
witnesses. It was a pretty busy intersection at that time of day.
Fatalities and wheelchairs aren't the whole story. They're ignored in your
stats. Lots of people "recover", but they're in constant pain forever.
Functionality isn't always total functioality and it doesn't cover pain. If
you could quantify the pain suffered by this one girl over 35 years and
compare it to the pain of someone who didn't bicycle, you'd probably have
10,000 pounds for her and 200 pounds for the non cyclist.
>>
>> > You are grasping at straws, hoping to demonstrate that bicycling is
>> > very dangerous. But all you're demonstrating is that you don't
>> > understand numbers and data.
>>
>> No. That's what you're doing. I'm a cycling enthusiast. I don't have any
>> interest in making cycling look safer or more dangerous than it is. I'm
>> just
>> interested in the truth.
>
> Then let me repeat: Dig out your own per-hour data and post it
> here.
>
>> You or one of the other guys here already admitted
>> that I shouldn't stir up the safety issue because "it makes it harder for
>> rest of us." See that? Not interested in the truth. Interested in
>> supressing
>> the truth for the sake of the sport.
>
> Another mistake. I am very interested in the truth. I don't want you
> _lying_ about cycling's danger.
>
> The fundamental problem is, you are looking at each incident where you
> feel you possibly came a little too close to hurting yourself, and
> treating each such incident as a terrible tragedy.
>
> However: a) It's likely you made mistakes in most, if not every,
> case. And b) you were not injured anyway.
>
> Safety data is not based on how frequently a less-competent individual
> scares himself. Safety data is based on how frequently the average
> person actually gets seriously injured or killed. That fundamental
> difference is tripping you up.
>
> Those interested in this issue are welcome to read
> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
> and to check out the listed sources.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
It only takes one accident, Frank, and then cycling is no longer healthy.
Your stats and the environmental superiority of the bicycle become
irrelevant. (Go ahead and figure out the environmental cost of living in a
wheelchair if you like.)
I know a close call when I see one and I see a lot more close calls when I
ride my bicycle than when I drive my car. I'm constantly reminded of the
consequences of these close calls every time my woman complains that her
knee is killing her, she can't stand another minute of pain, or she can't do
this or that.
The recumbent
