An anonymous bike messenger wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm just trying to keep the numbers in context.
>
> You make-a me laugh. Every time I put your numbers
> in context, you have a royal freakout.
If you define "freakout" as going to my references and giving
comparative numbers, maybe that's true - but to me, it seems kind of
dry for a "freakout."
>
> > When someone says cycling is dangerous because of its fatality count (as you just did)
>
> Whoa doggy!!! You wish I said that. What I said was
> that it's ludicrous to compare an activity that has
> 700 or so deaths every year and some unkown tens of
> thousands of serious injuries associated with it to
> an activity which has virtually none of these things.
> That's what I said, that's what I am saying.
What you said was, and I quote:
" But the safety comparison
between b-ball and cycling is ultimately not a favorable
one for us. Just ask the 25,000 or so people who have been
fatally injured in bicycle accidents since the bike
boom of the 1970's. "
IOW, in your continuing effort to prove that cycling is dangerous, you
mentioned your approximation for the fatality count for cyclists since
"the early 1970s."
If you don't think fatality count is a good way to determine danger,
I'd suggest you stop bringing it up.
>
> >I compare with the fatality counts from other
> > activities. When I do, cycling doesn't look so bad.
>
> Compared to other forms of traffic, you mean?
Yes, compared to being a pedestrian, a motorist or a motorcyclist. I
don't doubt that there are fewer basketball fatalities. But you can't
possibly doubt that there are many more pedestrian fatalities and many
more motoring fatalities. So if you use fatality counts to "prove"
cycling is dangerous, you'll have to admit walking anywhere around
traffic is FAR more dangerous. Driving is even worse.
> I notice you really don't like the idea of comparing
> basketball and cycling in terms of fatalies.
I really don't mind. I've never heard anyone say "Cycling is obviously
very dangerous, since it causes more fatalities than basketball."
Granted, you seem to be implying that, but even you know it's too silly
to state explicitly.
> I agree
> that cycling probably has a fairly similar fatality
> rate to driving or walking near traffic,
Ah! Progress!
> although
> it's been fairly well established by kifer and others
> that rate of injury is much higher for cycling.
More accurately, the rate of minor injury. (There's a lot of deja vu
around here.)
> But
> how much should we care about this? because as
> you will be quick to point out the majority of these
> injuries are fairly inconsequential(ER visits being
> a distinct subset within total injuries, comprising
> just 10-20% of total injuries).
Indeed. More progress!
> We already saw the
> number for annual ER visits, we wouldn't want to
> give it again as it sends Frank into a tizzy.
No tizzy. I'm quite calm. I just give comparative numbers. If you
don't want to see the easy rebuttals by comparisons, don't give numbers
you can't defend.
>
> > You've come in here before and - just as above - given a scary number
> > out of context.
>
> Here's where I really lose ya, even more than before
> when I had already lost ya.
> What 'scary number' are you talking about?
It's quoted above. You had to include all fatalities since "the early
1970s" to get a number scary enough to satisfy you, remember?
> If you're
> talking about 662 fatalities in 2002, you gave that
> number, and I don't find it particularly scary anyway,
> do you?
Not at all, in a country of over 250 million, where 700,000 die of
heart disease each year, 500,000 die of cancer, 160,000 die of stroke,
and over 3000 die of choking. 662 fatalities is, by comparison, a
truly tiny number. IOW, bike fatalities are _very_ rare.
> Or are you talking about when I said the
> number for annual ER visits was actually just 5% of what
> Tom Kunich posted previously? That it???
>
> As soon as you stop making **** up, I will stop
> calling you on it.
I've _got_ to wonder why you forget what you posted so recently!
> > The vast majority of Americans are not in any way afraid of motoring.
> > They judge the danger level of motoring to be acceptably low. Or in
> > common parlance, they judge driving to be safe.
>
> Most Americans think driving is safe. Therefore, driving
> is safe. Hard as it is to believe, that REALLY IS your
> argument.
I'll try to patiently explain once more.
The word "dangerous" is not an absolute judgement. It's relative.
There is an infinite number of activities that could, in principle, be
ranked from most dangerous to least dangerous, in infinitesmal steps,
using different metrics. There is no official boundary line separating
the "safe" activities from the "dangerous" ones.
And you can't ask the average American "Is an activity that causes 0.5
fatalites per million hours 'dangerous'?" Americans, on average, are
not good enough with math to really understand the question, let alone
judge the answer.
So you're better off doing it by comparison with another common
activity. But what should you compare with? In America, essentially
everyone drives. Everyone knows death and serious injury is at least
possible in a car. But everyone rides in cars with very little fear.
IOW, everyone accepts the injury and fatality rate of driving as
acceptably safe.
Of course, my point in all this is that cycling is at least as safe as
motoring (yes, except for minor scrapes) if you look at serious data.
You can attempt to prove this wrong. You can come up with a sufficient
list of normal Americans who will say "Oh, I think driving is _very_
dangerous! But I load my family into my car and drive anyway, shaking
all the way!" Good luck on that one, BTW.
Now if you disagree, you might say exactly why. If it's just that
you're afraid of riding in cars, say so, and we'll understand your
mindset a lot better. If it's that you are dedicated to disparaging
cycling (as I am dedicated to promoting it) be honest about it. But
tell us why.
- Frank Krygowski
