Originally Posted by
njkayaker
???
If you have to walk to school and you move from where you are a block a way to a place that is 4 miles away, any risk there is in walking increases.
Sure. Why not. Not really relevant but whatever.
If you move from the US to the Netherlands, you will be riding a lot more on average.
Comparing the risk per mile hides that increase.
That's not again not what the discussion is about. This is major league goalpost shifting. The discussion was about risk of cycling in different countries and you seem to be saying that cycling in the Netherlands is more dangerous than in the US. Of course a direct comparison is difficult, because the US is pretty big and the Netherlands aren't. But even then the proposition that cycling was safer in the US is laughable. Have you cycled in the Netherlands? I haven't in the US, but I can see enough videos about it to know I'd never even attempt it.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
It's one way. It's not necessarily "best" always. The risk per mile or time hides the fact that people in the Netherlands spend much more time cycling.
It doesn't actually. But cool that you brought that up. It's already a pretty well known phenomenom that more cyclists makes cycling safer so more time spent on the bike in general means less accidents and less deaths.
The risk per whatever might be lower but the exposure is much more.
Which doesn't matter if the risk is significantly lower. Not going to make an example because percentages are hard when you make percentage chains, but if you have a tiny risk and large exposure the risk is still smaller than a massive risk and tiny exposure.
It looks like you are more likely to die on a bicycle and less likely to die in a car in the Netherlands.
In 2019 that wasn't the case, but the numbers are pretty close. That doesn't however mean that cycling in the Netherlands is dangerous. It means that traffic there is incredibly safe.
in the year 2019 US motor vehicle fatalities were three times more than the whole traffic fatality rate of the Netherlands. If you compare just motor vehicle fatalities US fatalities were eight fold to those of the Netherlands.
So, you know, traffic in the Netherlands is safer.
No.
The risk of doing something can't be equivalent to not doing something. It's a "divide by zero" sort of situation. You are saying that not having money makes you infinitely wealthy.
I don't see why not. But if I have to use a country that has actually done manned missions then NASA should start doing all their launches from China. Much safer than the US. I haven't studied statistics but even I know that deaths per population is good for only one thing. Literally deaths per population. No other factors. Just that. Deaths per population in an activity is a useless metric.