[email protected] wrote:
> It may seem so to you, but again: You are deliberately restricting
> data used in your comparisons. You are making much of the fact that
> the raw count of HI for cycling exceeds that for, say, fishing. But
> the fact that it's FAR less than the raw count for motoring somehow
> cuts no ice! If you want to talk about raw counts, talk about all of
> them. By those data, cycling is NOT unusually dangerous.
Cycling led the way in treated head injuries. 70,000 such in one year.
> If you want to talk HI per hour, then adress the data I gave. Yes,
> data's incomplete - but by the available data, cycling is NOT unusually
> dangerous. Even among sporting activities.
How come more people got treated, by far, for head injuries incurred
while cycling when compared to sporting activities? Including contact
sports, some (basketball, soccer) where helmets are not or usually not
worn?
> I'm quite tired of people who seem to start with the premise that
> cycling _is_ dangerous, then filter data until they come up with some
> restricted subset to use as a soundbite. I think it's intellectually
> dishonest.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to accuse me of starting with a
premise. You said "go find some data". I did. 70,000 diagnosed, treated
head injuries in one year involving bikes is a lot. It doesn't matter
how many were MV-bike accidents, or how many hours people spent in
their cars in the same year. I've even said I don't think cycling
(especially the way I do it!) is dangerous. I haven't said anything
"pro-helmet", as in "it saved my life" or advocated MHL's.
That's a big number, that 70 g's, though, isn't it?
(me):
> > No, but they are bicycling, and almost 70,000 in that data were treated
> > for a real head injury. In one year.
(him):
> And at least 50 times more motorists, and at least 40 times more folks
> just bumbling around their house.
A red herring meant to somehow diminish the cyclist head injury count.
Go to the number and dismantle it if you can.
(me):
> > That doesn't include all those who
> > got a head injury and didn't get it treated. Since some 30% or more
> > (just guessing, it's increasing and over 40% in '05) are uninsured in
> > the USA, I'd guess that number is fairly large.
(him):
> Once again, you seem to forget that the above is NOT restricted to
> cyclists! Once again, it's not necessary to grab every fact you can to
> make cycling sound dangerous.
No no no. Don't drag any other non-cycling population in here! The
number I posted seems pretty solid, given the source-- these seem to be
diagnosed, treated head injuries, not much margin for error or sloppy
reporting. IOW, not the "broken legs, arms, ribs, scratch on the head"
listed as a "head injury", but real, treated head injuries. Plus all
the many not reported due to the high cost of ambulance rides and
emergency room care, hospital stays, etc. Deny if you want, or try to
confuse the issue, as you do. The numbers stand until you show why
they're wrong.
> Irrelevant! You don't _need_ organizations to get a kid on a bike!
> You just need a kid and a bike. That's one of the many beauties of
> cycling.
I counted bikes at my son's elementary school a while back. Twelve,
fourteen, something like that. Maybe 20 on a big day, and a few trailer
bike pickups. School pop. is 679 by one recent count. I grew up in the
50's too, Frank. At least where I live, bike use by kids is a pretty
small fraction of what it was in my generation. But, I didn't go to
summer camps all summer, and I didn't have
soccer/football/softball/baseball/gymnastics/swimming after-school
league play, during the school year, either. My preference would be for
the idle summer days of my youth, btw, fwiw, etc.
> Only because I hate people trying to overstate the dangers of cycling.
> I thought the data I gave provided better context - and, of course,
> showed cycling to be plenty safe.
Reporting data. You asked for it. Go to the numbers. 70,000
cycling-related head injuries treated, in one year, in the USA.
> > My "belief" is that cycling is pretty safe until you get run over by a
> > car or truck.
>
> Yeah. I believe that about walking, too. And driving. And you can
> make similar statements about any activity. As usual, it's not
> specific to cycling.
My statement that I made was exactly specific to cycling, as I
intended. IOW, the real danger is less, much less, the bike than it is
the MV's you're forced to share the road with.
> Personally, if I were interested enough to post more than, say, three
> times, I'd be interested enough to begin reading.
Well, I read a little and put up some numbers you haven't knocked down
yet. Sounds like your reading hasn't put many arrows in the ol' quiver
there, Frank. Leave the home falls and the MV stats out of it and
somehow make the 70,000 smaller. I'll go look for "cyclists treated for
broken collar bones" "cyclists treated for broken hips" "ribs"
"reconstructive facial surgery". Or not, point being made.
One of the other differences between us is that I'm teaching my kids
that cycling *is* *potentially* a dangerous activity unless you pay
attention and "follow the rules" (traffic laws) with the intention of
making them work for you, while "protecting yourself at all times". The
helmet is mostly for show, as the expression goes, but indicative of an
attitude that (I hope) is put on along with it: "You don't have to be
scared, you just have to pay attention and be careful".
It might be a little ironic that part of this attitude comes from
riding with some pretty hard-headed (and successful) racers. I believe
you don't have a very high regard for the racer bunch (correct me if
need be) but I started riding with them not to go racing (not at all),
but because their riding skills, speed last on the list as far as I was
concerned, were obviously far superior to mine. They taught me "The Law
of the Pack" (my description, misspent Scouting youth <g>) that covers
group ettiquette, which serves the end of riding fast in groups, over
distance, without having accidents (falls). By whatever name, a
wonderful oral tradition that augments the Rules of the Road very well.
Some know and follow it, some don't, some wear band-aids and slings,
and some don't-- evidently, cycling is a good bit more dangerous for
the second group mentioned! --D-y
