Originally Posted by
wphamilton
We're discussing driving risk vs cycling risk in the last few posts, so it's only about the kind of bicycling that corresponds to a trip taken in a passenger car. At least I am - njkayaker broadens the scope to all varieties of driving vs the total amount of bicycle miles so you have a point regarding that side of it.
Bizarre. Your 3 times more dangerous" statistics treats all riding and all driving as the same. You are doing the exact "broadening" you are complaning about. What you are doing is worse because you think that statistic is an "honest" measure of the actual risk an individual is exposed to. Actually, that risk is a (very rough) average and the risk to individuals likely has a very wide variation. Bizarre.
I believe the accidents-per-mile is different between for highway driving (lower) and other roads. If so, that would mean your "honest" three-fold increased risk is too high because you are "broadening" to include "all varieties of driving".
Anyway, no one (
including you) can get statistics without any "broadening".
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
The "helmeteer argument" is that the impact with the horizontal ground is independent of bicycle speed, or car speed. Two different factors.
You made that argument (without being a "helmeteer").