Drugs a significant health issue for cyclists?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18376 Post(s)
Liked 4,510 Times
in
3,352 Posts
There are people who have had their driver's license taken away due to driving intoxicated, and turn to riding bicycles.
It would be a lot to expect those people to suddenly become sober.
It would be a lot to expect those people to suddenly become sober.
Likes For CliffordK:
Likes For streetsurfer:
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,389
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,969 Times
in
1,918 Posts
Obviously, neither of you actually read the study, the recommendations are really about how best to get resources out to disadvantaged people so their only transportation option is not riding while intoxicated, and how to more effectively treat people who are brought into the ER under these circumstances, including getting them treatment for drug and mental health problems.
They take great pains to delineate who these cyclists are likely to be and if they're talking about throwing money anywhere, it's into meeting the safety, transportation and health care needs of the very poor.
Sorry if those aren't the cyclists you think we should care about.
They take great pains to delineate who these cyclists are likely to be and if they're talking about throwing money anywhere, it's into meeting the safety, transportation and health care needs of the very poor.
Sorry if those aren't the cyclists you think we should care about.
Food for thought though; It's much easier to judge someone that is on a bicycle going 12mph of there lifestyle than it is of someone seated behind a door that's moving 50mph. If a bicycle rider doesn't give off "rich" vibes, they might be assumed to be up to no good or have made poor life decisions.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
-Oh Hey!
#29
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
You are correct, however, I was pointing out the common expectations when anyone choose to pick up a bicycle habit.
Food for thought though; It's much easier to judge someone that is on a bicycle going 12mph of there lifestyle than it is of someone seated behind a door that's moving 50mph. If a bicycle rider doesn't give off "rich" vibes, they might be assumed to be up to no good or have made poor life decisions.
Food for thought though; It's much easier to judge someone that is on a bicycle going 12mph of there lifestyle than it is of someone seated behind a door that's moving 50mph. If a bicycle rider doesn't give off "rich" vibes, they might be assumed to be up to no good or have made poor life decisions.
All of this might be relevant if this was an article on how to profile and judge problematic cyclists, but I don't think an approach to trying to figure out how to prevent them from ending up in the ER in the first place by providing them transportation alternatives and on effectively treating them when they do end up in the ER has the slightest bit to do with judging the person. Quite the opposite, the only judgment being made is that someone who ends up in such a predicament probably needs help on a few fronts.
Likes For livedarklions:
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,389
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,969 Times
in
1,918 Posts
All of this might be relevant if this was an article on how to profile and judge problematic cyclists, but I don't think an approach to trying to figure out how to prevent them from ending up in the ER in the first place by providing them transportation alternatives and on effectively treating them when they do end up in the ER has the slightest bit to do with judging the person. Quite the opposite, the only judgment being made is that someone who ends up in such a predicament probably needs help on a few fronts.
We all have to start somewhere, all over again, though.
__________________
-Oh Hey!
-Oh Hey!
Likes For blacknbluebikes:
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bastrop Texas
Posts: 4,479
Bikes: Univega, Peu P6, Peu PR-10, Ted Williams, Peu UO-8, Peu UO-18 Mixte, Peu Dolomites
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 966 Post(s)
Liked 1,629 Times
in
1,045 Posts
#33
For The Fun of It
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,852
Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2135 Post(s)
Liked 1,646 Times
in
828 Posts
That's not the kind of drugs they're talking about.
After you said you'd figured it would be higher, I though you were going to go in the direction of how much weed you can smell coming out of cars when you ride through the city. Heck, I smelled it this morning coming in to work.
After you said you'd figured it would be higher, I though you were going to go in the direction of how much weed you can smell coming out of cars when you ride through the city. Heck, I smelled it this morning coming in to work.
#34
Newbie
Thread Starter
.
1) The relative size of the problems has nothing to do with whether either, both or neither should be discussed as being primarily a "public health" problem. You've made no case for relabeling cars in this way other than they kill more people than are killed riding under the influence. That's not an argument that makes any sense.
RESPONSE: The relative size of the problem has everything to do with what we prioritize as public health problems. That is why the statistic is cited. The researchers make the argument that drugs seriously injure 2% of people and that makes drugs a significant health problem. Cars injure way more people and that would make cars a much more significant health problem.
2) No one here is arguing or has ever argued that the danger cars create for people should not be discussed nor that we should just give up advocacy. I have no problem with you being an advocate, I just think you're giving us a prime example of bad advocacy. My point is that you haven't said anything that makes me think that relabeling this as primarily a public health problem instead of a law enforcement/engineering/education/economic problem is going to move the ball in any meaningful way. And by denigrating unnecessarily a public health approach to an issue of drug abuse, you simply alienate people who actually consider the abandonment of the "war of drugs" approach a very important thing.
RESPONSE: My approach is to not be distracted from the real problem which is cars. This study distracts from that. As an advocate, it is important to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by a 1 or 2% problem and instead focus on what is 98% of the problem. That is a responsible advocacy approach.
3) Our entire economy is not reliant on drugs, and certainly nowhere near the extent that it is on motor vehicles. Crashing our economy would itself create a rash of public health problems, so even in terms of public health the range of structural reforms are constrained by that reality. Where are you going with this? Do you think cars should be eradicated as a public health scourge? Do you think the relabeling somehow will make that more palatable?
RESPONSE: The total value of pharmaceutical spending in the US in 2018 was $335 billion. Total spent on automobiles was $82 billion. Your assertion that changing the way we travel and live would crash the economy is alarmist and doesn't take into account the public health savings, vehicle savings, road maintenance savings and much much more. I think that the use of the automobile should be reduced and speeds reduced.
4) So you're ok with trucks, they can do whatever? I can't tell what you're actually identifying as the actual public health problem. If you mean all motor vehicles on roads, then good luck spelling out what the practical implications of getting them banned as public health problems. If it's just cars that are going to get banned, we already kind of did that when auto manufacturers figured out that trucks have lesser safety standards and invented the SUV as the category buster.
RESPONSE: Vehicles are a public health problem. No one suggested getting them banned. Those are your words, not mine.
5)Be careful, you're looking for medical people to weigh in on here. What makes you think they might not see the presence of cyclists on the road as being the public health problem? You think they're any more anxious to give up their SUVs than any other interest group?
1) The relative size of the problems has nothing to do with whether either, both or neither should be discussed as being primarily a "public health" problem. You've made no case for relabeling cars in this way other than they kill more people than are killed riding under the influence. That's not an argument that makes any sense.
RESPONSE: The relative size of the problem has everything to do with what we prioritize as public health problems. That is why the statistic is cited. The researchers make the argument that drugs seriously injure 2% of people and that makes drugs a significant health problem. Cars injure way more people and that would make cars a much more significant health problem.
2) No one here is arguing or has ever argued that the danger cars create for people should not be discussed nor that we should just give up advocacy. I have no problem with you being an advocate, I just think you're giving us a prime example of bad advocacy. My point is that you haven't said anything that makes me think that relabeling this as primarily a public health problem instead of a law enforcement/engineering/education/economic problem is going to move the ball in any meaningful way. And by denigrating unnecessarily a public health approach to an issue of drug abuse, you simply alienate people who actually consider the abandonment of the "war of drugs" approach a very important thing.
RESPONSE: My approach is to not be distracted from the real problem which is cars. This study distracts from that. As an advocate, it is important to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by a 1 or 2% problem and instead focus on what is 98% of the problem. That is a responsible advocacy approach.
3) Our entire economy is not reliant on drugs, and certainly nowhere near the extent that it is on motor vehicles. Crashing our economy would itself create a rash of public health problems, so even in terms of public health the range of structural reforms are constrained by that reality. Where are you going with this? Do you think cars should be eradicated as a public health scourge? Do you think the relabeling somehow will make that more palatable?
RESPONSE: The total value of pharmaceutical spending in the US in 2018 was $335 billion. Total spent on automobiles was $82 billion. Your assertion that changing the way we travel and live would crash the economy is alarmist and doesn't take into account the public health savings, vehicle savings, road maintenance savings and much much more. I think that the use of the automobile should be reduced and speeds reduced.
4) So you're ok with trucks, they can do whatever? I can't tell what you're actually identifying as the actual public health problem. If you mean all motor vehicles on roads, then good luck spelling out what the practical implications of getting them banned as public health problems. If it's just cars that are going to get banned, we already kind of did that when auto manufacturers figured out that trucks have lesser safety standards and invented the SUV as the category buster.
RESPONSE: Vehicles are a public health problem. No one suggested getting them banned. Those are your words, not mine.
5)Be careful, you're looking for medical people to weigh in on here. What makes you think they might not see the presence of cyclists on the road as being the public health problem? You think they're any more anxious to give up their SUVs than any other interest group?
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,690
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cannondale SuperX, Univega Alpina Ultima
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 672 Post(s)
Liked 417 Times
in
249 Posts
I suspect more than 2% of people who are doing anything have drugs in their systems.
__________________
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
Formerly fastest rider in the grupetto, currently slowest guy in the peloton
Likes For bbbean:
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,482
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1237 Post(s)
Liked 321 Times
in
248 Posts
So you're worried about 300 of the 900 cyclist fatalities a year??
AFAIK there's that many every DAY killed by Fentanyl.
I don't think there's 20 in a whole year of AB cyclists.
AFAIK there's that many every DAY killed by Fentanyl.
I don't think there's 20 in a whole year of AB cyclists.
#38
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
#39
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Seriously, the way op framed this thread is pretty gross and a bunch of people have bought into it. This was a study published in a journal dedicated to treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. Basically, they're addressing better treatment and prevention of casualty and morbidity among the population they're studying. 300 deaths and 11,000 major injuries per year are really big numbers in this context. I don't see why anyone can seriously object to the suggestions made in the study or why supposed bicycle advocates would want to. You want to engage in "these people deserve to die" kind of rhetoric, knock yourself out, but I think that says some pretty lousy things about you.
Likes For livedarklions:
#40
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Likes For livedarklions:
#41
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
You've stumbled upon the real statistical issue here--it's 2% of bike accidents, but 1/3 of the fatalities.
#42
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
#43
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,539 Times
in
7,329 Posts
Likes For indyfabz:
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked 921 Times
in
518 Posts
From the article:
2% seems very low. My experience with the general public is that far more than 2% are F'ed up on something at any given time, esp. the marginalized populations who are generally more likely to be using drugs and less likely to be driving automobile. And as for the 30% of that 2% with cannabis (pronounced kan-AW-bee) in their system, so only 0.6% of the population used in the study are using cannabis? I guess they didn't do their study at a mountain bike park in BC
I would bet that a statistical analysis looking from a different perspective would lead to the conclusion that biking while high is less dangerous. Or maybe just that people on drugs are less likely to go to the ER when they crash their bikes.
That’s more than 2% of the total number of people treated for bike injuries in that time period.
I would bet that a statistical analysis looking from a different perspective would lead to the conclusion that biking while high is less dangerous. Or maybe just that people on drugs are less likely to go to the ER when they crash their bikes.
#46
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
From the article:
2% seems very low. My experience with the general public is that far more than 2% are F'ed up on something at any given time, esp. the marginalized populations who are generally more likely to be using drugs and less likely to be driving automobile. And as for the 30% of that 2% with cannabis (pronounced kan-AW-bee) in their system, so only 0.6% of the population used in the study are using cannabis? I guess they didn't do their study at a mountain bike park in BC
I would bet that a statistical analysis looking from a different perspective would lead to the conclusion that biking while high is less dangerous. Or maybe just that people on drugs are less likely to go to the ER when they crash their bikes.
2% seems very low. My experience with the general public is that far more than 2% are F'ed up on something at any given time, esp. the marginalized populations who are generally more likely to be using drugs and less likely to be driving automobile. And as for the 30% of that 2% with cannabis (pronounced kan-AW-bee) in their system, so only 0.6% of the population used in the study are using cannabis? I guess they didn't do their study at a mountain bike park in BC
I would bet that a statistical analysis looking from a different perspective would lead to the conclusion that biking while high is less dangerous. Or maybe just that people on drugs are less likely to go to the ER when they crash their bikes.
I think it's a lot simpler than that--the people coming into the ER for bike injuries are not likely to be tested for drug use and the proportion is wildly understated. That likelihood is acknowledged in the study, they just don't know how much it's understated.
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Groningen
Posts: 1,308
Bikes: Gazelle rod brakes, Batavus compact, Peugeot hybrid
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5998 Post(s)
Liked 956 Times
in
730 Posts
I can roll a spliff while biking drunk. Should I eloborate on my opinion on this?
Last edited by Stadjer; 10-07-22 at 09:47 AM.
Likes For Stadjer:
#48
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
University of Arkansas researchers are calling drugs a "Significant health issue" because 2 percent of people who are riding their bikes and are injured have drugs in their system. Cars cause way more injuries than drugs. Why didn't they call cars a "significant health issue?" When are researchers going to stand up and say what is really threatening public health? https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...awing-concerns
#49
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,986
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6193 Post(s)
Liked 4,809 Times
in
3,317 Posts
This statement probably suggests one of the faulty reasonings that is why we still after more than 50 years of drug enforcement haven't put a dent in drug misuse. We've just made the bad guys more dangerous.
#50
Firm but gentle
I might add, all the aforementioned people were quite caring and not prone to judgement about a huge segment of the general population.
Last edited by venturi95; 10-08-22 at 09:19 PM.