Google sponsored links
I was reading The Globe and Mail yesterday morning and on the back page of the first section is a daily feature called, Social Studies, a daily miscellany of information .
Quoting the source as The Washington Post, a bit had the title, The Odds of Death. It said,
The chance an American born in 2001 will die from:
suicide - 1 in 121
car accident - 1 in 247
any “force of nature” is - 1 in 3,357
riding a bike - 1 in 4,663
so I guess you have a greater chance of dying from a tornado, earthquake or flood than dying riding a bike.
:)
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Do you have a link to the article online?
Peace,
kb0tnv
I read it in the paper so I don't have a link but I just emailed the author to ask for more information. Hopefully, I'll get a link.
Well, to be fair, that's the chance any American will die from bike riding, including all those Americans who don't ride bikes!
What's more useful is to look at the chances any given American cyclist will die while riding a bike.
What's even more useful is to look at what the chances are for every hour a cyclist rides.
You can glean much by noting that the chances of death are much higher for children cyclists than for adult cyclists (probably because adults are much more likely to know and follow the rules of the road - to ride vehicularly).
Finally, looking at the chances per hour based on how you ride (riding with or against traffic, on sidewalks or on roads, etc.) is the most informative. And that's basically what Forester does in the book Effective Cycling.
Alas, studies that would look at all the truly relevant details have not been done.
Serge
OMG, there should be a helmet law for anyone who lives in tornado alley!
Well, to be fair, that's the chance any American will die from bike riding, including all those Americans who don't ride bikes!
Well, we don't really know that untill we look at the source and undertand how they came to the numbers they did.
I still think the ball park figure that shows dying while riding a bike in a responsible manner or dying in a natural disater is still a relatively small in comparrison to dying while driving.
I have other sources that show similar results:
From the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis website
(http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/# )
Risk of death for:
Heart disease = 1 in 397.
Motor vehicle accident = 1 in 6745.
Bicycle acident = 1 in 376,165.
Lightning = 1 in 1,478,159.
Health Canada published a study in 1991 that showed for each participant of an activity, deaths per 100,000
Motocycle accident 44.04
Motor vehicle (4 wheel) use 10.51
Pedestrian 2.12
Cycling 1
Larry Laudan, in The Book of Risks where he explains his methodology, says, If you are an “average American” the following risks you run each year,
You will have a heart attack 1 in 77
you will die in an automobile accident 1 in 5,000
you will be murdered or die of AIDS 1 in 11,000
you will be killed by a car while walking 1 in 40,000
you will die riding your bicycle 1 in 130,000
and of course, the FARS study that's published all over (including the BHSI)
# of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs. by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.
Swimming 1.07
Passenger cars .47
Bicycling .26
and of course, the FARS study that's published all over (including the BHSI)
# of fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hrs. by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.
Swimming 1.07
Passenger cars .47
Bicycling .26
Okay, I never took stats in college so correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as for every hour I'm on my bike, there is a one in four million chance that I'll be killed. I like those odds.
That's right Caluso. Remember to wear your helmet.
What if you purposely ride your bike into the path of a car during a hurricane?
wear a helmet then as well.
Okay, I never took stats in college so correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as for every hour I'm on my bike, there is a one in four million chance that I'll be killed. I like those odds.
Exactly. Note that for the cyclist who rides 15 hours a week, or 780 hours a year, that works out to about 1 in 5,000 chance of being killed in any given year. Much higher than the 1 in 376,000 or so for the "average" American which includes the vast majority who never get on a bike.
Of course the 1 in 5,000 odds applies to the cyclist who rides 15 hours a week and has the same odds per hour of being killed as does the average cyclist, which includes all the children and cyclists who ride non-vehicularly.
So the odds for a vehicular cyclist who rides 15 hours a week to die while bike riding in one year must be much better than 1 in 5,000, arguably at least 20x better, or 1 in 100,000.
Serge
Thanks guys.
Goes without saying that you should wear a helmet but it's still good that you said it.
This is good stuff for when my mom and mother-in-law express their worry that I'll be killed by some crazy driver. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but it seems to be an extremely small chance.
(And of course, the more we ride our bikes the less likely we'll die of heart disease, diabetes, etc., that's killing more and more North Americans every year.)
...the odds for a vehicular cyclist who rides 15 hours a week to die while bike riding in one year must be much better than 1 in 5,000, arguably at least 20x better, or 1 in 100,000.
Serge
That just makes common sense. There is a problem when including all cyclists because we include the huge number of "cyclists" that do the wrong things, like ride at night without lights, ride on sidewalks and on the wrong side of the road.
Ken Kifer on his traffic safety page @ http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/index.htm says,
We see a vast difference in the safety of selected groups of cyclists; for instance, children have 720 accidents per million hours while a group of British cyclists averaged just 66 accidents in the same amount of cycling time. We also see strong differences between individuals. Some have frequent, serious falls and/or collisions, and others have few accidents or none.
So, if you ride responsibly, your chances are even better.
If I recall correctly, I thought that 900 miles a year was a tipping point. Those that rode more than 900 had a sharp drop off in fatalities.
So, if you ride responsibly, your chances are even better.
That was my point, I think. Even better than what? As a cyclist, no matter how responsibly you ride, there is no way your chances of not dying while riding a bike are better than that of the average American. Even though the odds of the average American dying while riding a bike are arguably artificially high due to the inclusion of cyclists like children who ride improperly, these odds also include the vast majority of Americans who never ride.
Therefore, the low odds of the theoretical average American being killed while riding a bike are based on the assumption that the theoretical average American rides a bicycle only a few minutes per year, if even more than a full minute (take the total number of hours ridden by all American cyclists and divide by the population of the U.S. (270 million) to get the number of hours ridden by the average American.
Serge
That was my point, I think. Even better than what?
I would say better than the odds listed in the newspaper.
these odds also include the vast majority of Americans who never ride.
as I posted earlier, we don't really know that untill we look at the source and undertand how they came to the numbers they did.
I will add however, that the "average American has a far greater chance of dying from heart disease than cycling and that cycling helps prevent and even treat heart disease. Cycling extends life, it doesn't shorten it!
How can "The chance an American born in 2001 will die from riding a bike" not take into account the vast majority of Americans who never ride?
If it's talking about "The chance an American born in 2001 who rides a bike at least X hours/miles/whatever per year and will die from riding a bike" that would:
be pretty arbitrary (regardless of what X is).
be a detail that I would think they would mention.
That's why I contend their stats must be taking into account the the vast majority of Americans who never ride. Nothing else would make sense.
Consider the odds of "An American born in 2001 will die during an auto race" as compared to the odds of "A NASCAR racer born in 1970 will die during an auto race in 2005". Very different.
Very different.
Yup, it is. Still, fitting into the format of a small bit in a special intersest column, it's possible the all source material wasn't included.
I like the Health Canada source I put up because it says it is including all participants in the activity and I like the FARS because it includes exposure hours.
The clip is by no means difinative, but it's worth looking into for further detail.
Did you follow that my 1 in 5,000 number in post #11 was based on the FARS numbers?
Yeah, just how do you get that for that particular FARS study, the 1 in 5,000 odds applies to the cyclist who rides 15 hours a week?
I also agree with Ken Kifer when he says, We see a vast difference in the safety of selected groups of cyclists and, we see strong differences between individuals. Some have frequent, serious falls and/or collisions, and others have few accidents or none.
So these studies have some limitations, but still can give a general idea of a problem.
Coloso worked out that the FARS study implies that for every hour one rides, he has a 1 in 4,000,000 chance of getting killed. I verified his math; it was correct. (Pretty simple, the FARS study said there was .26 (or approx 1/4) deaths for every million hours of riding, which is the same as 1 death for every 4M hours... that implies a 1 in 4M chance for every hour of riding).
Anyway, given the 1 in 4M chance per hour, I calculated 15 hours per week means 780 hours per year, which means someone like that has a 780 in 4M chance of being killed while riding. Well, 780 in 4M is the same as 1 in 5,128, so I rounded it off to be 1 in 5,000.
Now think about that. The original study said anyone born in 2001 has a 1 in 4,663 chance of experience a fatal bike crash sometime in his life (not in any one year) while the other study said the chance of any American dying within a given year from a bike crash fatality is 1 in 130,000.
1 in 5,000 is much higher than 1 in 130,000.
But that makes sense, since the 1 in 5,000 number is the odds of not just any American dying from a bike fatality in a given year, but those are the odds for someone who actually rides 15 hours a week (and is based on the FARS number for per hour risk).
But like I have said all along and like you quoted Ken Kifer as saying: the odds for any particular cyclist vary enormously from that 1 in 5,000 number too. The point is that these are the AVERAGE odds PER YEAR for someone who cycles 15 hours a week, not just 1 in 130,000, or 1 in 5,000 over their entire life, but does assume all cyclists have the same odds of dying over any particular hour of riding.
To find out your particular odds, you would have to estimate your hourly odds (or you safer than the average cyclists; how many times safer?) relative to the average cyclist. Then take that number (say 10, assuming you feel you are 10 times safer than the average cyclist),divide .26 by that (.26/10 = .026), and that's your "in a million" odds of dying over any one hour of cycling. (.026/1,000,000).
Now multiply that by the number of hours in a year that you ride (or number of hours in a week * 52). Assuming 10 hours per week, that 520 hours per year. .026*520 = 13.52 So your odds of dying in any one year are 13.52 in a million.
Now divide 1 million by 13.52: 1,000,000/13.52 = 73,964 (call it 74k).
(All we're doing is saying 13.52/1,000,000 = 1/74,000, more or less)
So, assuming you're 10 times safer than the average cyclist, your odds of dying in any one year are about 1 in 74,000, which is almost twice as bad as the odds for anyone (whether they cycle or not) dying from a bicycle crash (supposedly 1 in 140,000).
Make sense?
Serge
See? This is why I avoided math in college!
I can see how you made your numbers. It's your own calculations.
I can see how I ride and how others drive and I can safely say, I feel my odds of survival are much better than others.
I find it funny that what others see as vunerability and dangerous (naked traffic exposure) I see as what keeps me alive (increased awarness and manouverability)
Drivers isolated in boxes disguised as living rooms complete with sedentary lifestyle is what'll kill you, not exercising with hyper-awarness of your surroundings.
Ok, math is not my strongest area, but the statistic is that for every 4mil hours spent by all individuals on a bike there is one fatality. So, presumably if you were to spend 4mil hours in one year, on a bike by yourself, you would have a 1:1 chance of dying in a biking accident. For every 1mil hours you spend biking you have a 1:4 chance of dying. I believe it would break down like so.
Hours/year Chance of death
500k 1:8
250k 1:16
175k 1:32
87500 1:64
43750 1:128
21875 1:256
10937 1:512
5468 1:1024
2734 1:2048
1367 1:4096
683 1:9920
341.5 1:19840
The numbers get a little skewed due to rounding but I think it will figure on down to about a 1:4000000 chance at 1 hour of participation.
Closetbiker: We all know you are anti helmet. Why do you have to keep trolling?
Personally I have a much better chance of getting killed while biking than I do by driving, climbing the stairs, crossing the road or being hit by a tornado. Riding in traffic is the single most dangerous thing I do every day. I'm surrounded by 2500 pound machines being driven by people on their phones, putting on makeup and drinking coffee. Hence the reason I wear a helmet.
OMG, there should be a helmet law for anyone who lives in tornado alley!
When there's one near our helmets are with us when we go in the closet.
SS
Closetbiker: We all know you are anti helmet. Why do you have to keep trolling?
With a response like that, we all know you're a laggard (one who lags behind).
Don't worry, some day you may catch up to what is being discussed. It'll just take a little more time for you to get here.
;)
I don't agree with exposure hours as the standard of measure.
If I have to go from point A to pint B I would want to know which is safer for the distance traveled, not for the hours it took me to get ther. If I can make it in 15 minutes in a car, but it takes 1 hour on a bike, than what good does knowing about "exposure hours" do me? I want "exposure miles" as my standard.
With a response like that, we all know you're a laggard (one who lags behind).
Don't worry, some day you may catch up to what is being discussed. It'll just take a little more time for you to get here.
;)
I'm already there. You should come out of the closet some day though. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
;)
Personally I have a much better chance of getting killed while biking than I do by driving, climbing the stairs, crossing the road or being hit by a tornado. Riding in traffic is the single most dangerous thing I do every day. Hence the reason I wear a helmet.
Remember the key thing that anti-helmet statistic citers always overlook.
It's not just death we are worried about. It's also serious injury short of death (concussion, brain dammage, etc.)
I personnaly believe we are safer from death on a bike (hour for hour) then we are in a car. We are certainly many orders of magnitude less safe from injury.
You should come out of the closet some day though.
Yeah, don't bother with making a reasoned argument, name calling is always the best way to resolve issues.
For the rest of us, here's another page on ken's site that has all kinds of odds on the risks of cycling
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
"we have to acknowledge that there are between 700 and 1,000 fatalities in the US each year, which is a small number compared to the million or so who die from diseases that cycling could help prevent and the approximately 150,000 people killed in other kinds of accidents...it seems that bicycling is less dangerous or no more dangerous per hour than driving a car, and since motorists spend more time driving, the lifelong risk of the average motorist is two to four times greater than that of the average cyclist without the 20X compensating health benefits of cycling. In addition, motor vehicles kill over five thousand pedestrians each year while bicycles kill at most one or two. Finally, the majority of cycling deaths occur to the minority who are not following such simple safety proceedures as riding with the traffic, stopping for traffic lights and stop signs, and using lights at night. Then, when looking at injuries, we find that the serious injuries are only a small part of the total"
There is always chance to get killed one way or another. It is impossible to prevent it with absolute certainty.
When I cycle or jog I always carry with me my business card with the name, address, contact phone numbers, and e mail.
The proper contact information changes more then I thought. It depends on several factors, which include location, availability of the particular relative in town, etc. That is why I use this free online script to print the up-to-date identification cards www.enetplanet.com/card/ (http://www.enetplanet.com/card/)
In case of death such card would make the identification and notification much easier. If the identification fails and the deceased is buried by authorities somewhere, the cost of exhumation could be in thousands for the family, which would have more than enough troubles without this one.
Laggard:
This is not the first time that closetbiker has been called a troll. I guess I don't understand the definition of a troll. Is it a) someone who enters into debate with reasoned arguments and empirical evidence to support their position, or is it b) someone who throws insults or makes wild claims in the hopes of creating a disturbance? If a) is correct, then he is a troll. If b) is correct, on this thread at least, you are.
There is always chance to get killed one way or another. It is impossible to prevent it with absolute certainty.
"We're more afraid of shark attacks than heart attacks and statistically that's wrong," says David Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. "The more awful the manner of death, the more likely we are to be afraid of it," says Ropeik. "But it leads us to make statistically riskier
choices -- to drive instead of fly, to buy guns for personal protection, to take powerful antibiotics when we don't really need them." The flip side of the phenomenon is the whole range of potentially fatal hazards we should be worried about but downplay, says Ropeik, like the flu, medical errors, skin cancer and traffic
accidents.
We lose when time, money and worry is spent on things that take away from time, money and worry on other things that are more deserving of our attention.
Safety is about trade offs. If America spends millions trying to make rubber duckies safer, that money is unavailable when it’s time to fight bigger threats. If we scare you about minimal risks, we lead you to take bigger risks.
The Harvard Risk Center study mentioned above says they derived their odds of death by dividing total US fatalities in the given year by the total US population, which as Serge points out, includes a lot of people not exposed to risk (ie. non-cyclists). I haven't examined all the stats but my sense is that estimates of exposure for cyclists are difficult to come by. Re the Failure Associates risk estimates, which DO attempt to estimate exposure hours for the various activities, I wrote them and they sent back an article published in 1993 in Mechanical Engineering that described the methods. Basically, they took exposure hours from some household survey of 40,000 US residents in 1990 and used that as the denominator, then took national fatality rates and divided the two to get the risk of fatality per million hours of activity. I can send you the pdf if you are interested in the details. One criticism is that the sample may be biased in some way, but at least they took at crack at it.
Ok, math is not my strongest area, but the statistic is that for every 4mil hours spent by all individuals on a bike there is one fatality. So, presumably if you were to spend 4mil hours in one year, on a bike by yourself, you would have a 1:1 chance of dying in a biking accident. For every 1mil hours you spend biking you have a 1:4 chance of dying. I believe it would break down like so.
Hours/year Chance of death
500k 1:8
250k 1:16
175k 1:32
87500 1:64
43750 1:128
21875 1:256
10937 1:512
5468 1:1024
2734 1:2048
1367 1:4096
683 1:9920
341.5 1:19840
The numbers get a little skewed due to rounding but I think it will figure on down to about a 1:4000000 chance at 1 hour of participation.
The math is correct, but the numbers are only accurate if you assume that every cyclist's odds of dying are the same no matter how or where they ride, which is of course false. For any given cyclist, his particular odds vary from these based on how much more or less safe he is than is the average cyclist.
If you're a helmeted vehicular cyclist your odds of getting killed are much lower than those in this table.
If you're a 12 year old kid who rides without a helmet on sidewalks and crosswalks, and the wrong side of the road at night without lights or reflectors your odds of getting killed are much higher than those in the table.
Serge
Yeah, don't bother with making a reasoned argument, name calling is always the best way to resolve issues.
For the rest of us, here's another page on ken's site that has all kinds of odds on the risks of cycling
When did I call you a name? You're the one who used my screen name as a put down.
This is a pointless debate. You're rabidly anti-helmet and I feel differently. That's all.
See? This is why I avoided math in college!
My college had an introductory stats course intended to educate students about how tricky statistics can be. They called it How to Lie With Statistics. Unfortunately, I did not take it, I just picked up the fact that you have to be careful. :)
Laggard:
This is not the first time that closetbiker has been called a troll. I guess I don't understand the definition of a troll. Is it a) someone who enters into debate with reasoned arguments and empirical evidence to support their position, or is it b) someone who throws insults or makes wild claims in the hopes of creating a disturbance? If a) is correct, then he is a troll. If b) is correct, on this thread at least, you are.
Closetbiker started this thread knowing damn well that it would start a huge debate and subsequent flamewar. That's why he started it. That's a troll. The subject has been rehashed over and over again. There's no reason to bring it up again. The only reason would be to cause an uproar. Again, trolling.
Let's go deeper here. Here's a few other facts.
85% of bicyclists deaths occur when the rider was not wearing a helmet
so, take those earlier statistics divide by 5 if you do not wear a helmet because you are 5 times more likely to be the one who is killed. Multiply by 5 if you do because you are 5 times less likely to be the person if you are wearing a helmet.
638 hours
1:1984 no helmet
1:49600 helmet
But wait, that still doesn't work because we don't know what percentage of riders wear a helmet. If only 15% wear a helmet then helmets don't help at all. You would have to have a 50/50 split to be able to say what NHTSA does, which is that helmets reduce the chance of head injury by 85%. Now, this might be pretty close to true as 51% of children say they always wear helmets, but children under 16 are only 24% of the bicycle related deaths. 35 years ago that number was 68%. So what has changed? Also almost no children wore helmets in 1975 and now it's 50%. Well lookee here, half now where helmets and their percentage of fatalities has fallen by slightly more than half. In this whole mess we finally found something that actually makes sense. Fewer children die when they where helmets.
Wear a freakin' helmet so I don't have to do this much research!!
Note:
Injury statistics are from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Child helmet use statistics taken from a study done by the Center for Rural Emergency Medicine at West Virginia University and published in "Injury Control and Safety Promotion."
Closetbiker started this thread knowing damn well that it would start a huge debate and subsequent flamewar. That's why he started it. That's a troll. The subject has been rehashed over and over again. There's no reason to bring it up again. The only reason would be to cause an uproar. Again, trolling.
I posted this thread because it shows cycling is relatively safe. I've made no mention of helmets here.
I have no problem discussing issues with reasoning, but when an argument is made by simply calling someone names, like anti-helmet gay troll, there's no point to respond because the mind has been revealed as lacking the capacity to reason.
I thought your name was appropiate to your post because you're lagging behind in a former debate about helmets.
My college had an introductory stats course intended to educate students about how tricky statistics can be. They called it How to Lie With Statistics. Unfortunately, I did not take it, I just picked up the fact that you have to be careful. :)
You could read “Damned Lies and Statistics - Untangling numbers from media, politicians and activists” by Joel Best.
"We should always think critically. Everything has limitations and stats have a natural bias by being a product of who produces it and what aims the producer has. Stats can still be useful though.
Being Critical means more than simply pointing to the flaws in a statistic. The issue is whether a particular statistic's flaws are severe enough to damage its usefulness."
Or read, The book of risks by Larry Laudan - for all those who think knowing is better than not knowing-
"Virtually everything is risky so to try avoid risk, should we be reduced to total inactivity?"
and you should also read, The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner
"Mary Douglas, the eminent anthropologist who devoted much of her career to studying how people interpret risk, pointed out that every society has an almost infinite quantity of potential dangers from which to choose. Societies differ both in the types of dangers they select and the number. Dangers get selected for special emphasis, Douglas showed, either because they offend the basic moral principles of the society or because they enable criticism of disliked groups and institutions."
The chance of being killed per hr riding a bike is just over half that of a car. Since the average speed of a bike is just under half that of a car, this risk per mile travelled on a bike is slightly higher. However the difference is not that great, and I dont know anybody who refuses to travel by car because it is too dangerous. If anyone says that cycling is too dangerous for them, ask them to explain why they use a car.
I have no problem discussing issues with reasoning, but when an argument is made by simply calling someone names, like anti-helmet gay troll, there's no point to respond because the mind has been revealed as lacking the capacity to reason.
Gay??? You completely missed the point. Your screen name is Closetbiker. As in someone who is in the closet about their biking. The word gay never even entered my mind.
I wouldn't use Ken Kifer as a source that bicycling is safe considering he died while riding his bike ...
If somone argued that buying lottery tickets was a wise financial investment would it matter to you whether they had won the lottery or not? The point is that the argument is either valid or not - you should evaluate the argument for its merits not by who is presenting it.
Likewise, you should evaluate the cycling safety arguments presented on Kifer's pages, as well as those presented in this forum and anywhere else, solely on their merits independent of who happens to be presenting the argument.
Serge
Gay??? You completely missed the point. Your screen name is Closetbiker. As in someone who is in the closet about their biking. The word gay never even entered my mind.
Good one Potsie. Keep on contributing and showing your worth.
Laggard:
This is not the first time that closetbiker has been called a troll. I guess I don't understand the definition of a troll. Is it a) someone who enters into debate with reasoned arguments and empirical evidence to support their position, or is it b) someone who throws insults or makes wild claims in the hopes of creating a disturbance? If a) is correct, then he is a troll. If b) is correct, on this thread at least, you are.
it is actually none of those things. some people even consider it a compliment. You could try a google search or follow this link.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/computing/troll
Computing Dictionary
Definition:
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
Good one Potsie. Keep on contributing and showing your worth.
My posts haven't been much more worthless than the irrelevant data and facts you've been posting.
I actually did make a good point that you chose to ignore.
Biking to work is the single most dangerous thing I do in my life. Why shouldn't I take precautions?
As someone else mentioned, the stats you originally posted were not reflective of people like me who bike in traffic everyday. For your average joe who rides around the lake once a week, it may be 1 in 4000. My chances of being killed or hurt riding are much much greater than 1 in 4000. There is no way that I have a greater chance of getting killed by a tornado than I do by riding downtown.
You started dying with the first breath You took!
Deal with it, just try to be running at the Max when You take in the last!
I would rather die on My feet, {bike} than live on My knees!"
I actually did make a good point that you chose to ignore.
I must have missed it. Is it the one you've put doen here?
Biking to work is the single most dangerous thing I do in my life.
That would depend on your perception of the risk and how it is you ride in comparrison to how you conduct your other tasks.
the stats you originally posted were not reflective of people like me who bike in traffic everyday. For your average joe who rides around the lake once a week, it may be 1 in 4000. My chances of being killed or hurt riding are much much greater than 1 in 4000. There is no way that I have a greater chance of getting killed by a tornado than I do by riding downtown.
Once again, that would depend on your perception of the risk. As for your breakdown of your odds, how would you come up with those specific numbers?
I've put in over 120,000 kms commutting to work in heavy traffic every day for the last 20 years and have very little trouble.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.