livedarklions

Citation needed. As far as I can find,10x is the highest number, I haven't seen anything close to 20x, let alone 80.

FBinNY 

Regardless of the multiplier, I don't think a per mile comparison is valid.

I take roughly 8 hours to ride what I might drive in two, but other than my commute, it's an apples and oranges comparison because I'm not riding to get places I could drive to.

So, I prefer to think about per hours and compare to my other forms of recreation on that basis.

Also, I've never lived by statistics. I manage risk to beat the odds. So, when All is said done, I judge my risk on the bike to be higher than driving, but lower or within the range of other life factors.

jon c. 

As a golfer in a region with a lot of pop up thunderstorms, I suspect the lightning risk in golf is more dangerous than cycling for me.

Paul Barnard

I may have done so awkwardly, but I made a somewhat long-winded attempt at saying that it is very likely that there are more bicyclists on the road. Covid saw a massive increase in outdoor recreation. I was agreeing with this part of your reply "but that may very well be the result of more people riding."

Paul Barnard

I think a per hour, rather than per mile comparison more accurately captures the risk.

Paul Barnard

By paying a modicum of attention and using radar and lightning apps, you can dramatically reduce that risk.

livedarklions

I've made the argument against per mile in other threads. The primary reason it's an awful comparison is the existence of high speed interstates, there's just no bicycle equivalent. That's still not an excuse for overstating the difference making the crappy comparison even crappier.

Stats are interesting if you're talking beyond one's own personal risk, but crummy stats are useless.

livedarklions

Have you considered golfing on a bike during a thunderstorm?

jon c. 

I have considered a golf bike. There are several people at my course who have them. And if I had one sooner or later I'd get caught in a storm. You could definitely get back to the clubhouse a lot faster than on foot. And this course has some long distances between holes, so if you're on the far end of the back nine it's a long way home.

mschwett 

it depends, i think, if you're riding for utility, in which case the relevant metric is distance. "how likely am i to get killed achieving my goal of buying groceries from a market 3 miles away." this is the way all transport risks are measured, that i've ever seen. accidents per passenger miles, basically.

if you're riding for pleasure, you set out for however much time you feel like and have available, and if instead you were driving for pleasure, swimming, snorkeling, golfing, etc, those activities would all be done for the same approximate couple of hours.

FBinNY 

I agree that it makes sense to compare risk based on the objective, utility or recreation. However, there's a bigger issue to consider, namely the various assumptipns and skews.

Statistical comparisons of this type assume that the risks are spread uniformly within each category.

But life doesn't work that way. I don't think that anyone would be surprised to know that members within each category can and do alter their individual odds.

If you want to beat thd odds as a driver, don't drive drunk, be older than 25, avoid driving in bad weather, and so on. Same with cyclists.

So, we need to start by separating the controllable from random or uncontrollable. As a cyclist, there's not much I can do about being passed, because I have no idea or control over who's coming up from behind. I do have some control by choosing roads and times of day intelligently but that's limited, so I'm at the mercy of odds and luck.

OTOH, I have much more control in urban riding, where situational awareness and tactical skill in traffic can change the odds greatly.

Just like.with drivers, accidents aren't distributed evenly, and some cyclists are very "lucky" and others not. We each choose which group we want to join.

rossiny

go back and read bud,, my response was to a comment on how inefficient cars are. . Im free to respond to a comment as are you....

livedarklions

OK, bud. It's a stupid comment either way as you appear to be arguing about the efficiency of using a jumbo jet to go a few miles to the grocery store.
You want to calculate the fuel per passenger mile for cars and airplanes? Knock yourself out, but it's complicated. If you're comparing shorter trips, be sure to include the fuel needed to transport passengers to and from airports. I'm pretty sure you won't find it more economical to take the jumbo jet to and from the grocery store for a couple bags of groceries, but maybe you could make this work by chartering the plane with 150 other shoppers and/or buying your groceries at an airport terminal. I look forward to your report on this project.

It's a non sequitur no matter what topic you had in mind. And no, the people on this thread are not mind readers, we have no idea why you want us to think about jumbo jets in the context of anything discussed on this thread.



If you post something dumb, people are free to question it, especially if the point is irrelevant to the thread topic.

​​​​​

rydabent

If you dont have the Me generation attitude that everyone should give way to me and get out of my way like some do, I suppose it may be more hazardous. But if you use common sense and logic on where and how to ride safely, I dont agree.

steine13

The OP used common sense and logic alright....he explained to us a threat he did not expect, could not hear, and could not see until the last moment.

There's not a lot he could have done differently.

Whether to this is worse than a decade or three ago is another question. Idiots are eternal.

cheers -mathias

livedarklions

More BS generational conflict nonsense from you. What exactly do you think this adds to the conversation other than express your pointy-headed stereotypes?

rydabent

I am surprised you can post all your personal attacks on me considering the placement of your head. Are all people from New England as annoying as you are****************************** Or is it that that wonderful seat you defend is crushing your brain???

Apparently you are too ******* stupid to understand a cyclist can some what control his safety by where, when, and how he rides. Such as dont ride on an arterial during rush hour, and there are many more.

livedarklions

I ride quite safely on some arterials during rush hour. Arterials around here often have great shoulders, etc. General rules are wrong quite often.

Again, why did you feel a need to post your stupid generational stereotype in order to make what little point you had? I didn't say you had a pointy head, only that the stereotype is pointy-headed.

Meantime, you take a swipe at my brain location and DF bike seats. You were specifically told to stop doing the latter, but now you seem to think you can get away with that by being "cute".

rydabent

This is the advocacy and Safety area. That covers ALL kinds of cycling, and you follow me over here to continue your personal attacks. Do you think the mods approve of that??? But then some people are just annoying ********!!!

rydabent

This is the advocacy and Safety area. That covers ALL kinds of cycling, and you follow me over here to continue your personal attacks. Do you think the mods approve of that??? But then some people are just annoying ********

livedarklions

Go ahead, explain what your BS about the "Me Generation" has to do with advocacy and safety or the thread topic. The only one getting personal and insulting here is you. You started by insulting an entire generation, and now you're going after me because I called BS on it.

rydabent

If the shoe fits WEAR IT.

livedarklions

​​​What shoe? You have no shoes. I do know what you can't tell from Shinola, however.

shelbyfv

Entirely inappropriate but you seem to have at least 9 lives here on BF.

FBinNY 

Guys, please take this bar fight outside before the furniture gets broken.