Originally Posted by
njkayaker
???
With a "destination in mind", you'd choose to drive if the distance was long and ride if the distance was close. People choose the mode of transportation based on the distance.
Comparing risk/distance doesn't make sense. While it's not perfect, comparing risk/hour makes more sense since it roughly accounts for the distance/mode issue.
If I'm going to the drug store, and choosing between car and bike, which would be safer? I have to look at it per mile.
If I'm driving for pleasure, just to look around, or riding for fun, I think of it as a block of time and I'd look at it per hour.
If my driving destination is one that I'd never bike to, I don't see the point of comparing them.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
The average distance was 3 inches closer for passes that averaged 1.5 meters. It isn't clear that 3 inches matters at all with respect to real risk.
Yeh, that's my main objection. I'm not real wild about Walker's methodology either.