Originally Posted by
wphamilton
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.
No, you don't "have to" look at it that way.
If the drug store was 20 miles away, you would drive. If it was next door, you'd walk.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
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.
People usually have a "set" amount of time do do things "for pleasure". If they have a 1 hour "block of time", then they can ride for 12 miles or drive for 50 (it's very unlikely that they would drive at 12 mph for an hour!)
Thus, the risk is more related to time than it is to distance.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
If my driving destination is one that I'd never bike to, I don't see the point of comparing them.
At issue is comparing the risk of cycling versus driving. A related issue is people choosing to drive when they could ride instead. The overal risk to a population isn't related to the your choice.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
Yeh, that's my main objection. I'm not real wild about Walker's methodology either.
Walker stressed that it was one study in one place and that one might not be able to expect that the results were universal.
It points to the problem of studies with the anti-helmeteers too: studies that don't support their position are fatally flawed and studies that do are perfect.