https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855

From that site:

* On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
vehicle in the United States.

* Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
roadway crashes annually in the United States.

I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
dangerous than walking.

As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
pedestrians.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>
> From that site:
>
> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
> vehicle in the United States.
>
> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
> roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>
> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
> dangerous than walking.

I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.

>
> As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
> said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
> pedestrians.
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>
>>  From that site:
>>
>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>> vehicle in the United States.
>>
>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>
>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>> dangerous than walking.
>
> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.

That's far from certain.

Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.

The results:
Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
Walking for exercise: 1.4%
Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%

And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
three times as bad!

Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
ride over ten million miles between fatalities.

British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.

In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
couch.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>
>>>  From that site:
>>>
>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>
>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>
>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>> dangerous than walking.
>>
>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>
>That's far from certain.
>
>Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.
>
>The results:
>Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%

Such surveys require a control group to be valid. I suspect that if
someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
been involved in some kind of accident.

>And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>three times as bad!
>
>Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>ride over ten million miles between fatalities.

Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities? Most
Americans don't ride after their first fatality. The value of
exercise after death has been greatly overrated.

>British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
>there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
>true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>
>In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
>couch.

If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how many times
have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries? My
past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
would not admit to an injury. I also find it odd that the survey
would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
asking how many injuries. Why only one month? Were they worried that
if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
would probably have been injured at least once. Also, was the month
the same for everyone in the survey? I suspect not or the question
would have been phrased differently. For cycling, if they selected a
month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
selected a month with a low accident rate. Time of day when riding
would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate. Were riders
who died included in the survey? Traditionally, the dead do not
answer survey questions. How far did they ride in the month of the
survey? If it was rather long distances, the chances of having an
accident would be much higher than if they rode short distances.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>
> From that site:
>
>* On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>vehicle in the United States.
>
>* Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>
>I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>dangerous than walking.

<EYEROLL> Could it be that many many more people walk than ride
bicyles?

Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
figures, if true, substantiate it.

>As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
>said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
>pedestrians.

What's your point?

On 3/14/2024 12:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>
>>>>  From that site:
>>>>
>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>
>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>
>> That's far from certain.
>>
>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.
>>
>> The results:
>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>
> Such surveys require a control group to be valid. I suspect that if
> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
> been involved in some kind of accident.
>
>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>> billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>> three times as bad!
>>
>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>
> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities? Most
> Americans don't ride after their first fatality. The value of
> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.
>
>> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>>
>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
>> couch.
>
> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how many times
> have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries? My
> past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
> would not admit to an injury. I also find it odd that the survey
> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
> asking how many injuries. Why only one month? Were they worried that
> if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
> would probably have been injured at least once. Also, was the month
> the same for everyone in the survey? I suspect not or the question
> would have been phrased differently. For cycling, if they selected a
> month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
> cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
> selected a month with a low accident rate. Time of day when riding
> would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate. Were riders
> who died included in the survey? Traditionally, the dead do not
> answer survey questions. How far did they ride in the month of the
> survey? If it was rather long distances, the chances of having an
> accident would be much higher than if they rode short distances.

>
> "I suspect that if
> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
> been involved in some kind of accident."
>

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pool-or-Spa-Submersion-Estimated-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-and-Reported-Drownings-2023-Report.pdf?VersionId=aKdoue0fOpavlEc1E6FBLzYzIAKO8lyW

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/14/2024 12:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>
>>>  From that site:
>>>
>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>
>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>
>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>> dangerous than walking.
>>
>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>
> That's far from certain.
>
> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.
>
> The results:
> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%

a link would help:
https://paulogentil.com/pdf/Injury%20rates%20from%20walking%2C%20gardening%2C%20weightlifting%2C%20outdoor%20bicycling%2C%20and%20aerobics.pdf

Nice study, short enough to escape the dreaded TLDR excuse. However, I
think it's important to note the authors comparison the the
self-reported participation in the NHIS study:

"Comparing the NHIS with ICARIS, participation rates are lower in NHIS
for walking for exercise (44% vs 73%), gardening or yard work (29% vs
71%), weightlifting (14% vs 21%), and aerobics or aerobic dance (7% vs
14%). "

Notably, the NHIS study doesn't go into injury/accident rates for
cycling, but given the rather significant differences in reported
participation rates and the small sample size, I'm thinking a .5%
difference in injury rates between cycling and walking in the ICARis
data probably falls well within the margin of error.

I'm not saying you're wrong, rather, the data presented isn't convincing
(to me, anyway).

>
> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
> billion km ridden.  Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
> three times as bad!
>
> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.

Again, a link would help
https://www.vtpi.org/puchertq.pdf

Another interesting statistic from that study is injuries per million trips:

"In 1995, there were 29 pedestrian fatalities, 26 cyclist fatalities,
but only 9 car occupant fatalities per 100 million person trips"

But the data does validate your point - cycling per mile is ~ 3 times
safer than walking

>
> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>
> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
> couch.

yup
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3400064/

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/14/2024 1:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>
>>>>  From that site:
>>>>
>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>
>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>
>> That's far from certain.
>>
>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.
>>
>> The results:
>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>
> Such surveys require a control group to be valid. I suspect that if
> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
> been involved in some kind of accident.

Meh...I don't think it's all that relevant for pure statistical
analysis. Do you really need a control group to compare injury rates per
mile for walking vs cycling? I don't think so.

>
>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>> billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>> three times as bad!
>>
>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>
> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities? Most
> Americans don't ride after their first fatality. The value of
> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.
>
>> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>>
>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
>> couch.
>
> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how many times
> have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries? My
> past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
> would not admit to an injury.

True, self-reporting surveys are always suspect. One would suspect just
the participation rates are highly suspect, as noted in the massive
differences between the referenced NHIS study and the ICARIS study.

> I also find it odd that the survey
> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
> asking how many injuries. Why only one month? Were they worried that
> if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
> would probably have been injured at least once. Also, was the month
> the same for everyone in the survey? I suspect not or the question
> would have been phrased differently.

That was all detailed in the body of the study. They discussed
specifically why only 30 days, and FYI, it was the "past 30 days".

> For cycling, if they selected a
> month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
> cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
> selected a month with a low accident rate. Time of day when riding
> would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate. Were riders
> who died included in the survey? Traditionally, the dead do not
> answer survey questions.

The dead aren't liekly to be interviewed at all. The ICARIS study
referred to in Powell et al was based on USDOT data and included
reported deaths.

> How far did they ride in the month of the
> survey? If it was rather long distances, the chances of having an
> accident would be much higher than if they rode short distances.

True, the Powell study didn't address that as part of the survey, which
is one reason I noted to frank that it leaves me unconvinced.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/14/2024 8:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 12:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>>
>>>>>   From that site:
>>>>>
>>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>>
>>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>>
>>> That's far from certain.
>>>
>>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous
>>> month.
>>>
>>> The results:
>>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>>
>> Such surveys require a control group to be valid.  I suspect that if
>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
>> been involved in some kind of accident.
>>
>>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>>> billion km ridden.  Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>>> three times as bad!
>>>
>>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>>
>> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities?  Most
>> Americans don't ride after their first fatality.  The value of
>> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.
>>
>>> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
>>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
>>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>>>
>>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
>>> couch.
>>
>> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how many times
>> have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
>> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries?  My
>> past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
>> would not admit to an injury.  I also find it odd that the survey
>> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
>> asking how many injuries.  Why only one month?  Were they worried that
>> if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
>> would probably have been injured at least once.  Also, was the month
>> the same for everyone in the survey?  I suspect not or the question
>> would have been phrased differently.  For cycling, if they selected a
>> month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
>> cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
>> selected a month with a low accident rate.  Time of day when riding
>> would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate.  Were riders
>> who died included in the survey?  Traditionally, the dead do not
>> answer survey questions.  How far did they ride in the month of the
>> survey?  If it was rather long distances, the chances of having an
>> accident would be much higher than if they rode short distances.
>
>
>
>>
>> "I suspect that if
>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
>> been involved in some kind of accident."
>>
>
> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pool-or-Spa-Submersion-Estimated-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-and-Reported-Drownings-2023-Report.pdf?VersionId=aKdoue0fOpavlEc1E6FBLzYzIAKO8lyW

Does getting a pedicure count as physical activity?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-pedicure-dr-mark-hinkes

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/14/2024 7:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 8:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 12:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   From that site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed
>>>>>> by a moving
>>>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000
>>>>>> bicyclists are injured
>>>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far
>>>>>> worse than for
>>>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling
>>>>>> as much more
>>>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or
>>>>> injuries per miles
>>>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>>>
>>>> That's far from certain.
>>>>
>>>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening,
>>>> Weightlifting,
>>>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in
>>>> Sports &
>>>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000
>>>> people who had
>>>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise.
>>>> One question was
>>>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during
>>>> the previous month.
>>>>
>>>> The results:
>>>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>>>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>>>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>>>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>>>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>>>
>>> Such surveys require a control group to be valid.  I
>>> suspect that if
>>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would
>>> still have
>>> been involved in some kind of accident.
>>>
>>>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of
>>>> Rutgers has
>>>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons
>>>> from Europe")
>>>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109
>>>> fatalities per
>>>> billion km ridden.  Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities
>>>> per billion km,
>>>> three times as bad!
>>>>
>>>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden
>>>> per fatality for
>>>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for
>>>> pedestrians. And
>>>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he
>>>> greatly
>>>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted
>>>> that Americans
>>>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>>>
>>> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities?
>>> Most
>>> Americans don't ride after their first fatality.  The
>>> value of
>>> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.
>>>
>>>> British data for decades has consistently found more
>>>> pedestrian
>>>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities
>>>> per mile. AFAIK,
>>>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where
>>>> the reverse was
>>>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same
>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is
>>>> sitting on the
>>>> couch.
>>>
>>> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how
>>> many times
>>> have you been injured in the previous month", would you
>>> produce an
>>> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of
>>> injuries?  My
>>> past experience working with such surveys suggests that
>>> most people
>>> would not admit to an injury.  I also find it odd that
>>> the survey
>>> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury"
>>> instead of
>>> asking how many injuries.  Why only one month?  Were they
>>> worried that
>>> if they extended the time period to one year, a much
>>> larger percentage
>>> would probably have been injured at least once.  Also,
>>> was the month
>>> the same for everyone in the survey?  I suspect not or
>>> the question
>>> would have been phrased differently.  For cycling, if
>>> they selected a
>>> month which has a high accident rate, typically when
>>> everyone is
>>> cycling, the survey results would have been very
>>> different had they
>>> selected a month with a low accident rate.  Time of day
>>> when riding
>>> would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate.
>>> Were riders
>>> who died included in the survey?  Traditionally, the dead
>>> do not
>>> answer survey questions.  How far did they ride in the
>>> month of the
>>> survey?  If it was rather long distances, the chances of
>>> having an
>>> accident would be much higher than if they rode short
>>> distances.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "I suspect that if
>>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would
>>> still have
>>> been involved in some kind of accident."
>>>
>>
>> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pool-or-Spa-Submersion-Estimated-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-and-Reported-Drownings-2023-Report.pdf?VersionId=aKdoue0fOpavlEc1E6FBLzYzIAKO8lyW
>
> Does getting a pedicure count as physical activity?
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-pedicure-dr-mark-hinkes
>
>>
>

Odd that you mention pedicures. A good friend, 80 years
young, developed an infected ingrown toenail recently after
a pedicure and her doc warned those can be deadly if not
promptly addressed.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/14/2024 9:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 7:46 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 8:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 12:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   From that site:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>>>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per
>>>>>> miles
>>>>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's far from certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>>>>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>>>>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>>>>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>>>>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous
>>>>> month.
>>>>>
>>>>> The results:
>>>>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>>>>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>>>>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>>>>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>>>>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>>>>
>>>> Such surveys require a control group to be valid.  I suspect that if
>>>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
>>>> been involved in some kind of accident.
>>>>
>>>>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>>>>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>>>>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>>>>> billion km ridden.  Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>>>>> three times as bad!
>>>>>
>>>>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>>>>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>>>>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>>>>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>>>>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>>>>
>>>> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities? Most
>>>> Americans don't ride after their first fatality.  The value of
>>>> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.
>>>>
>>>>> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>>>>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile.
>>>>> AFAIK,
>>>>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the
>>>>> reverse was
>>>>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on
>>>>> the
>>>>> couch.
>>>>
>>>> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport and how many times
>>>> have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
>>>> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries?  My
>>>> past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
>>>> would not admit to an injury.  I also find it odd that the survey
>>>> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
>>>> asking how many injuries.  Why only one month?  Were they worried that
>>>> if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
>>>> would probably have been injured at least once.  Also, was the month
>>>> the same for everyone in the survey?  I suspect not or the question
>>>> would have been phrased differently.  For cycling, if they selected a
>>>> month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
>>>> cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
>>>> selected a month with a low accident rate.  Time of day when riding
>>>> would also have had a huge effect on the accident rate. Were riders
>>>> who died included in the survey?  Traditionally, the dead do not
>>>> answer survey questions.  How far did they ride in the month of the
>>>> survey?  If it was rather long distances, the chances of having an
>>>> accident would be much higher than if they rode short distances.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I suspect that if
>>>> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
>>>> been involved in some kind of accident."
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pool-or-Spa-Submersion-Estimated-Nonfatal-Drowning-Injuries-and-Reported-Drownings-2023-Report.pdf?VersionId=aKdoue0fOpavlEc1E6FBLzYzIAKO8lyW
>>
>> Does getting a pedicure count as physical activity?
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-pedicure-dr-mark-hinkes
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Odd that you mention pedicures. A good friend, 80 years young, developed
> an infected ingrown toenail recently after a pedicure and her doc warned
> those can be deadly if not promptly addressed.

I have a similar anecdote, my Aunt recently had an infection from a
pedicure - which is why I mentioned it.

--
Add xx to reply

On 3/14/2024 3:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>
>> From that site:
>>
>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>> vehicle in the United States.
>>
>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>> roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>
>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>> dangerous than walking.
>
> <EYEROLL> Could it be that many many more people walk than ride
> bicyles?
>
> Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
> figures, if true, substantiate it.
>
>> As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
>> said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
>> pedestrians.
>
> What's your point?

My primary point is that the American public (as a whole, or on average)
greatly overestimates the danger of a simple, normal bike ride.

My secondary point, just now, is that I see no value in trying to
educate an ineducable and very fearful Florida path rider.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/14/2024 4:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 3:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>
>>>  From that site:
>>>
>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>
>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>>> roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>
>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>> dangerous than walking.
>>
>> <EYEROLL> Could it be that many many more people walk than ride
>> bicyles?
>>
>> Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>> figures, if true, substantiate it.
>>
>>> As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
>>> said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
>>> pedestrians.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> My primary point is that the American public (as a whole, or on average)
> greatly overestimates the danger of a simple, normal bike ride.
>
> My secondary point, just now, is that I see no value in trying to
> educate an ineducable and very fearful Florida path rider.
>

Especially one that reads:
"Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
roadway crashes annually in the United States."

and concludes

"Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
figures, if true, substantiate it."

dumbass.....

--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:19:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/14/2024 3:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>
>>> From that site:
>>>
>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>
>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>>> roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>
>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>> dangerous than walking.
>>
>> <EYEROLL> Could it be that many many more people walk than ride
>> bicyles?
>>
>> Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>> figures, if true, substantiate it.
>>
>>> As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
>>> said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
>>> pedestrians.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
>My primary point is that the American public (as a whole, or on average)
>greatly overestimates the danger of a simple, normal bike ride.

Assumes "facts" not in evidence. Your irrelevant data, your opinion
and your anecdote are not evidence.

>My secondary point, just now, is that I see no value in trying to
>educate an ineducable and very fearful Florida path rider.

Of course, you have nothing of value to offer, and lack the
qualifications to attempt it.

On 3/14/2024 1:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 4:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 3:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>
>>>>  From that site:
>>>>
>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured
>>>> in roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>
>>> I think if you compare injuries per participants or injuries per miles
>>> traveled, you'll see they're probably correct.
>>
>> That's far from certain.
>>
>> Powell et. al., “Injury Rates from Walking, Gardening, Weightlifting,
>> Outdoor Bicycling and Aerobics”, Medicine & Science in Sports &
>> Exercise, 1998, Vol. 30 pp. 1246-9 polled over 5000 people who had
>> chosen at least one of those activities for exercise. One question was
>> whether the participant had incurred an injury during the previous month.
>>
>> The results:
>> Weightlifting: 2.4% of participants injured
>> Gardening or yard work: 1.6%
>> Aerobic Dance: 1.4%
>> Walking for exercise: 1.4%
>> Outdoor bicycling: 0.9%
>
> Such surveys require a control group to be valid. I suspect that if
> someone was able to do NOTHING for one month, they would still have
> been involved in some kind of accident.

Sorry, that makes no sense. First, we're talking about _relative_ risk,
comparing various activities. And how would you define a control group?
A group that does NOTHING for one month might have to be nearly
catatonic, and certainly would have to be confined to bed. The
"accidents" suffered by people like that are medical deaths. Although
yesterday, I was told about a friend of a friend who fell out of bed and
broke her neck. Not fatally, but serious enough to require surgery, so
there is that...

>
>> And while injuries =/= fatalities, Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has
>> published (in "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe")
>> an estimate from U.S. data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per
>> billion km ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km,
>> three times as bad!
>>
>> Pucher's number works out to 5.7 million miles ridden per fatality for
>> cyclists, 1.7 million miles walked per fatality for pedestrians. And
>> Pucher's later work, as well as other sources, show he greatly
>> overstated the bicycling risk. It's now widely accepted that Americans
>> ride over ten million miles between fatalities.
>
> Americans ride over 10 million miles between fatalities? Most
> Americans don't ride after their first fatality. The value of
> exercise after death has been greatly overrated.

:-) I'd say we don't know that! I'm hoping that my riding after death
will be scenic, in beautiful weather, and all gently downhill with a
tailwind.

>
>> British data for decades has consistently found more pedestrian
>> fatalities per mile traveled than bicycling fatalities per mile. AFAIK,
>> there have been only a couple years in the past 20 where the reverse was
>> true. I've also seen Australian data showing the same result.
>>
>> In any case, for most Americans the far bigger danger is sitting on the
>> couch.
>
> If someone asked you "what is your favorite sport ...

Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."

> ...and how many times
> have you been injured in the previous month", would you produce an
> accurate number, or would you minimize the number of injuries? My
> past experience working with such surveys suggests that most people
> would not admit to an injury.

Really? I don't see why that would be. I believe I'd answer honestly -
why not? - but my answer would almost always be "zero." I don't injure
myself much at all.

(Anecdote alert: The last injury I recall was a [GASP!] head injury. One
of my two garage doors is a manually lift. About two weeks ago, at
night, I raised it not all the way, entered the garage to get the trash
can, and bumped my head on the way out. Got a slight scratch.)

(Hmm. Is that a walking injury? I suppose if I were getting a rake
instead of the trash can, it would be a gardening injury.)

> I also find it odd that the survey
> would ask if "the participant had incurred an injury" instead of
> asking how many injuries. Why only one month? Were they worried that
> if they extended the time period to one year, a much larger percentage
> would probably have been injured at least once.

<sigh> Another study addressed that point. See
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21068616/

"Bicycle commuter injury prevention: It is time to focus on the
environment", Melissa R. Hoffman, et.al., Journal of Trauma, V 69, no.
5, Nov. 2010 reports on exhaustive surveys of Portland, OR bike
commuters. Hoffman's team feared that injury surveys underestimate
injury counts due to people forgetting an injury, so they recruited just
under 1000 commuters who agreed to repeated queries. They contacted them
once per month, specifically because they figured it would take at least
a month to forget an injury.

(Which raises the question, if an injury is so mild as to be forgotten
in six weeks, does society _really_ need to be concerned?)

So they contacted everybody each month, asking something like "Were you
injured? Yes or no." and "Did you show the injury to any medical person?
Yes or no." (A company nurse would qualify.)

If the person answered yes to the latter, the authors dubbed it a
"serious injury," probably not minding that someone might have asked for
a tiny Band-aid. Their motivation, pretty obvious from the title, was to
"prove" that more bike lanes were needed, even though bike lanes and
quiet streets dominated their injury counts.

Results? Crunching their breathless numbers, the commuters averaged 6667
commuting miles per boo-boo (AKA _any_ injury, no matter how small) and
25,600 commuting miles between injuries that got _any_ medical
attention, even a Band-aid. That's a very low level of danger.

> Also, was the month the same for everyone in the survey > I suspect not or the question
> would have been phrased differently. For cycling, if they selected a
> month which has a high accident rate, typically when everyone is
> cycling, the survey results would have been very different had they
> selected a month with a low accident rate.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There's a contingent of Bicycling
Advocates who put great store in "Safety In Numbers," claiming that if
there are lots of cyclists about, they will be safer on average, because
motorists will be less surprised by their presence, facilities will be
better maintained, etc.

Admittedly, I'm not a member of that contingent, at least regarding
America's levels of bicycle use. I think a bike mode increase from 0.3%
to 0.4% is negligible in that regard as well as other regards. And it
frosts me that "Safety In NUmbers" is used to justify some atrocious
facility designs, via claims that "It doesn't matter. As long as we get
more people riding, they'll be safer."

But to me, we're pretty far off into the weeds. I think it's clearly a
fact that normal bicycling is not an unusually dangerous activity,
nowhere near as dangerous as most people seem to believe. And that
pretending it is dangerous does no good for bicyclists or for society as
a whole.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:26:25 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/14/2024 4:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 3:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:44:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2024 11:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/newsroom/incidentreports/incident.cfm?id=30855
>>>>
>>>>  From that site:
>>>>
>>>> * On average, every day, twenty pedestrians are killed by a moving
>>>> vehicle in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> * Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>>>> roadway crashes annually in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> I'll note that the figures for pedestrians are far worse than for
>>>> bicyclists. Yet the general public thinks of bicycling as much more
>>>> dangerous than walking.
>>>
>>> <EYEROLL> Could it be that many many more people walk than ride
>>> bicyles?
>>>
>>> Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>>> figures, if true, substantiate it.
>>>
>>>> As we left at the start of today's group ride, a woman walking a dog
>>>> said "Please be safe!" She has probably never said that to other
>>>> pedestrians.
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>
>> My primary point is that the American public (as a whole, or on average)
>> greatly overestimates the danger of a simple, normal bike ride.
>>
>> My secondary point, just now, is that I see no value in trying to
>> educate an ineducable and very fearful Florida path rider.
>>
>
>Especially one that reads:
>"Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
>roadway crashes annually in the United States."
>
>and concludes
>
>"Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
>figures, if true, substantiate it."
>
>dumbass.....

<LOL> More bicylists are injured than mountain climbers, too, Dummy.
Does that mean that bicycling is more dangerous than mountain
climbing?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."

Nonsense.

On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>
> Nonsense.

I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.

Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
activities' by the participants or by observers.

As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>
>Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>activities' by the participants or by observers.

Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
USA.

>As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.

sport noun (GAME)
A1
a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
often competing against each other:

sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
A1
all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
enjoyment:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport

On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>
>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>
> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
> USA.
>
>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>
> sport noun (GAME)
> A1
> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
> often competing against each other:
>
> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
> A1
> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
> enjoyment:
>
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport

Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>
>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>
>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>> USA.
>>
>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>
>> sport noun (GAME)
>> A1
>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>> often competing against each other:
>>
>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>> A1
>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>> enjoyment:
>>
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>
>Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
choice.

But back to the sports issue...

I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
target shooting? Hang gliding? Scuba diving? non-competitive
skiing?

Am 15.03.2024 um 08:49 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>
>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>
>>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>>> USA.
>>>
>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>
>>> sport noun (GAME)
>>> A1
>>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>>> often competing against each other:
>>>
>>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>>> A1
>>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>>> enjoyment:
>>>
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>>
>> Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
>
> True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
> work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
> If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
> choice.

It can also be an ecological choice, a convenience choice (when cycling
is faster than driving due to traffic jams or a non-road shortcut), and
then "most" is not "all": there are people who (for age reasons or for
health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.

> But back to the sports issue...
>
> I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
> not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
> target shooting? Hang gliding? Scuba diving? non-competitive
> skiing?

Bicycling from A to B has the primary aim of transprotation unless it is
followed more or less immediately by non-cycling trip (e.g. car or
train) from B to A.

Bicycling from A to A clearly does not have the primary aim of
transportation and might be counted as non-competitive sports or as
simple leasure activity.

Similarly, it is up to discussion whether hiking or "having an afternoon
stroll" from A to A is seen as non-competitive sport or as non-sport
leasure activity (this classification might depend on secondary features
like "does the user track the route", "is there a speed-measuring device
present", "how many breaks for what purpose" (e.g. half an hour laying
in the sun or taking pictures are pointers that this might be non-sport).

Rolf

> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>
>> Nonsense.

<chuckle>

A dumbass who reads:
"Approximately 76,000 pedestrians and 47,000 bicyclists are injured in
roadway crashes annually in the United States."

and concludes

"Of course riding bicycles is more dangerous than walking and those
figures, if true, substantiate it."

claiming others are writing nonsense.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:45:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 15.03.2024 um 08:49 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:07:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/14/2024 5:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:25 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2024 4:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please. For ~99% of cyclists, bicycling is not a "sport."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Mr Krygowski on that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Riding to work, grocery, accompanying children to and in a
>>>>> park and so on would not be described as 'sporting
>>>>> activities' by the participants or by observers.
>>>>
>>>> Most bicyclists I've heard of ride for recreation, at least in the
>>>> USA.
>>>>
>>>>> As in so may fields the 'weekend warrior' cyclists get all
>>>>> the press but they are still a small subset of 'cyclists'.
>>>>
>>>> sport noun (GAME)
>>>> A1
>>>> a game or activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment,
>>>> often competing against each other:
>>>>
>>>> sport noun (PHYSICAL ACTIVITY)
>>>> A1
>>>> all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for
>>>> enjoyment:
>>>>
>>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/sport
>>>
>>> Riding to work in a Midwest winter is outside that.
>>
>> True, but in the USA, most who do that have other means to get to
>> work, so riding a bike to work in cold and snow is a choice they make.
>> If it's not the cost, it must be an enjoyment or health related
>> choice.
>
>It can also be an ecological choice, a convenience choice (when cycling
>is faster than driving due to traffic jams or a non-road shortcut), and
>then "most" is not "all": there are people who (for age reasons or for
>health reasons) are unable to drive but able to bicycle.

I quesstion the validity of any claims that they ride a bike for
ecological reasons. Although there may be a tiny, tiny few who are
that deep into la la land to make such a claim, most such claims have
more of a look at me basis.

>> But back to the sports issue...
>>
>> I believe that an activity needn't be competitive to be a sport. Are
>> not hunting and fishing sports? How about a little non-competitive
>> target shooting? Hang gliding? Scuba diving? non-competitive
>> skiing?
>
>Bicycling from A to B has the primary aim of transprotation unless it is
>followed more or less immediately by non-cycling trip (e.g. car or
>train) from B to A.
>
>Bicycling from A to A clearly does not have the primary aim of
>transportation and might be counted as non-competitive sports or as
>simple leasure activity.

It's a war or words. I ride from A to B as recreation, but then do I
ride from B back to A as transportion? I really need to get back to
where I started from.

>Similarly, it is up to discussion whether hiking or "having an afternoon
>stroll" from A to A is seen as non-competitive sport or as non-sport
>leasure activity (this classification might depend on secondary features
>like "does the user track the route", "is there a speed-measuring device
>present", "how many breaks for what purpose" (e.g. half an hour laying
>in the sun or taking pictures are pointers that this might be non-sport).
>
>Rolf

I believe an activity can be both a leasure activity and a sport.
Scuba diving, for example.