It seems clear that you have some degree of astraphobia... The OP talked of multiple unsafe riding practices, in order to get to his home (rather than seek a closer safe shelter). It is clear from the evidence I've presented (and a little common sense) that his risky riding put him in greater danger than the lightning. A point you seem incapable of understanding given your unreasonable fear of getting hit by a lightning strike...

If being outside in a lightning storm (whether golfing, hiking, or riding a bicycle) were even remotely close to a 1% probability of getting struck by lightning the morgues would be filled with corpses and we would hear public service announcements hourly... 58 deaths per year on average for the last 30 years.... that would mean only 5800 people exposed to one lightning storm per year on average in the US. The statistics I quoted earlier do not appear to be based upon simple US population, but rather population (estimated) exposed in combination with the number of events exposed to. A probability of 0.0004% (in the most likely case)... In other words the odds are based upon 14.5 million person exposures (hardly the entire US population) in other words 14.5 million people out in one storm or 1.45 million people in 10 storms or 145000 people in 100 storms, etc...

Riding recklessly is the last thing a person should do if caught out in a lightning storm...

If if if, but but but.

You go ahead and ride that bike in the middle of a field in a lightning storm. Godspeed to you!

I see that in your paranoia you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. You claimed the sampling error, I explained that it wasn't in error. Like most folks you don't seem to understand basic probabilities.

For anyone reasonable, just click on the NOAA link I posted above and find out the right way to deal with getting caught out in a lightning storm--or just enjoy the spectacle like thousands of generations of humans have before...

Whatever, you clearly just want to argue for argument's sake. I refuse.

Go ride your bicycle in the middle of a lightning storm, hypocrite.

Pot meet the black kettle!

I read it:

OK, then how can you say this:

That's not clear - at all. If you have no statistics concerning cyclists struck by lighning, you CAN NOT make that conclusion. You have no idea how many cyclists ride in lighning storms, the conditions in those storms, and the rate at which they can be hit.

So there's no way you can conclude anything about relative danger from what you posted.

nonsense.

Just because I can't find any statistics related to cyclists being struck by lightning doesn't mean the statistics associated with lightning strikes is not applicable--there is little reason to believe that there is any difference in risk between walking, hiking, cycling, or playing golf in a thunderstorm. Only 56 people die from lightning strikes annually in the US. The best statistics available indicate a probability of between 1:250,000 and 1:750,000 The google search I did perform found only a few isolated cases and none in 2010. Nearly seven hundred cyclists die annually, about 560 of them due to accidents with cars... Of the 56 people who die from lightning strikes, it appears that the number of them who are cyclists is fairly small (maybe 5 or so annually, if that). I suspect that the reason I could find no statistics on the subject is because the number is so small as to not be amenable to statistical analysis--at least in terms of the applicability of the the activity of cycling to the issue of being hit by lightning)

Riding like a salmon, or failure to check for clear intersections are dangerous behavior, particularly when visibility is lowered by a thunderstorm. Given the number of cyclists killed each year it seems clear which is the more dangerous activity. That said, by all means seek a safe shelter until the storm ends, but do so while continuing to ride safely. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Have trouble understanding the paraphrase? Perhaps this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_cal...e_kettle_black would help?

All you just did was repeat yourself - "it seems clear".

No, it's not.

How many millions of times a day does someone in the US cycle in traffic? It wouldn't surprise me if there's 10 million man-hours of cycling in traffic in the US - every day.

Do you really think the number hours cyclists spend biking in lightning storms every is anywhere near being within two orders of magnitude of the number of hours cyclists as a whole spend in traffic?

If you do, that means you think the average cyclist who bikes 10 hours a week on roads also averages 6 minutes a week riding in lightning storms.

Do you honestly believe riding against traffic or not looking if an intersection is clear is less risky than riding in a thunderstorm? If you do then your sense of probabilities is way off.

Further, please re-read the last sentence in post #58 and tell me why you disagree with that statement.

Either way, I'm through trying to explain probability to folks who can't seem to grasp the basics...

I already knew what the phrase means. Calling me names won't help you though.

achoo, i recommend to let him just go about it... no need to force him.

This is getting ridiculous, but one last clarification. I didn't call you a name, I was pointing out that your statements (see below) better reflected your own actions.

Name calling and silly arguments about statistics?... shouldn't this be moved to A&S mod?

The XKCD author must read this board.
BTW the mouseover text for this was "Dude, wait, I'm not American! So my risk is essentially zero!"

Ah, you get overstressed about nothing. I ride in all kinds of weather, and occasionally in thunderstorms, too. It makes for a quick and interesting ride, high on adrenaline Nothing more, nothing less. Ofc, I use common sense and count the time after the flash, you can roughly estimate the distance of the actual strike by doing so. If it gets too close, it's time to clear out of the road into a suitable shelter until it passes. I enjoy riding in thunderstorms but I ain't crazy, and will pull out if it gets going a bit too close for my taste.

Beat me to it.

You tried to infer we're coming from the same point, to start an argument for argument's sake. Yes you did call me names, make me out to be some extremely phobic person. To be honest, it's quite dumb to even be writing to you anymore, that is probably the problem.

what a wacky thread this has devolved into.

anyway, my lightning protection drill involves scoping the local weather radar on my iphone prior to every time i leave my house. if things looks dicey along my intended route, i'll leave the bike at home and take the L or a bus to my destination. the weather radar is not infallible, but it's a pretty good system that i feel significantly increases my odds by not putting myself into risky lightning situations to begin with.

First, you are the one making claims that traffic is much more dangerous than lightning. Not me. I don't have to support anything. You want to make a claim, YOU support it.

Second, you have yet to define "risk". At all.

Third, given the literally millions if not hundreds of millions of man-hours cyclists spend in traffic each year compared to the paucity of hours cyclists spend in lightning storms, you have yet to make YOUR case. Given that, you can't claim AT ALL that "it's clear" when YOU admit you don't have any evidence to support your claim.

By your very own numbers, there's a two-order-of-magnitude greater number of cyclists killed in traffic each year than the number of cyclists killed by lightning. Since there's a two-order-of-magnitude difference in deaths, if cycling in lightning is less dangerous than cycling in traffic, an average cyclist would have to, on average, spend more than 1% of the time spend cycling in traffic also cycling in lightning.

In other words, given YOUR numbers, for your claim to be true that traffic is more dangerous, the average cyclist who spends 10 hours a week cycling in traffic would also have to average at least 6 minutes per week cycling in lightning.

EVERY cyclist in the US of A would have to AVERAGE that.

They don't.

Your numbers are WRONG.

Your "understanding" of statistics is WRONG.

Being a smug condescending jerk who claims superior "understanding" doesn't change that.

WTF does actions to improve safety in lightning have to do with the relative risk of cycling in lightning versus cycling in traffic?

You might as well have posted a link to a recipe for clam chowder.

Must have been some good arguments you had with yourself - and lost.

I like watching smug, superior, condescending, and WRONG in action.

To paraphrase the statistically challenged individual who started this arguement, you have a sampling error. In fact it is more of a domain error. The domain is not all cyclists, but those who are riding in an unsafe manner. Lets discuss just the first unsafe operation discussed; salmoning. A study in Washington (state not city) indicated that for the year studied 11% of the cyclist fatalities were in situations where the cyclists was traveling in a contraflow manner. Extrapolating the results nationally that would mean approximately 77 deaths annually for salmoning cyclists...

That you and the other guy seem to have a problem with the simple statement that "..seeking safe shelter, while riding in a safe manner..." is the best advice in the OP's situation is beyond me... I'm guessing you just like hearing yourselves argue.

In reference to your WTF sentence. I simply was providing useful information for the OP and those who came to see the answer considering the thread title... You know if your out and a thunderstorm comes up, what shelters are available in given environments.

I wish you and the other gentleman a nice day. Please go argue with someone else now.

I agree with this part. Everything else, not so much. I'll let other people take on those points.

All that backpedaling and adding of conditions to your claims and you only accounted for about 15% of your stated number of cycling deaths due to traffic.

Please quote my post where I said I had a problem with that.

I said it's as relevant as a clam chowder recipe to the question of whether cycling in traffic or lightning is more dangerous.

Good Lord, you can't even construct a cogent argument.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm TOYING with you.

Are you serious? Multiple unsafe riding practices? I went 200 meters on the left side of a road that had zero oncoming traffic for the 200 meters of it I rode. I crossed over the the right side when safe.
I went a little faster, but not anywhere near unsafe even in wet conditions. I stopped at the red light and slowed at stop signs as I always do.
Home was the nearest safe shelter.