3 ms·

Bicycles are more dangerous, from what I can tell - about 10x the risk when travelling the same distance. (Due to the lack of safety equipment and the inability

Bicycles are more dangerous, from what I can tell - about 10x the risk when travelling the same distance. (Due to the lack of safety equipment and the inability to keep up with the prevailing flow of traffic.)

uoaei 3y ago
Cars are the ones hitting bicycles, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here about what the statistics show.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Falls, in general, more commonly kill people than vehicles. It's not a perfect trade for safety. There's always factors that need to be actually measured.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    No, they don't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#/media/File%3ACauses_of_accidental_death_by_age_group.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#...
    - akira2501 3y ago
      I have significant issues with that chart. The source is the authors own work and it's not referenced or published anywhere else. The single reference is a 23 year old CDC report from which the author has extracted ICD codes from incomplete data charts that this report uses as a limited reference. He also missed the fact that "Other and Non specified" categories include ICD codes that directly specify falls. Just falls from or to various circumstances that aren't covered by the basic W codes. It's a bad chart, "They appear not to," would be more accurate, but I tend to think this chart was made with appearances as a priority over accuracy and understanding.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Alright, a different and more recent source shows it being significantly closer but still with motor vehicles leading: https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/nsc-statement-on-new-cdc-data-showing-a-rise-in-accidental-death https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/nsc-statement-on-new-cdc...
        akira2501 3y ago
        Well, if you accept their notions of "preventable" and the categorizations that result. A vehicular death from DUI is still preventable in the vehicular category? Are we suggesting the vehicle was the primary cause or the alcohol? Are we trying to make vehicles safe enough for drunks to drive? If not, then this scheme is a little out of whack for what I was trying to get at. Or what anyone who doesn't have an prejudiced agenda against vehicles would want to know. Those statistics also include pedestrians who got hit, and motorcyclists who met the end of their road. Those two together are 32% of the total. Again, is the vehicle at fault here, or risky behavior? Which are we trying to measure? At face value, you are right, though; however, it's still pretty close and the rate of change suggests a crossing. In either case, I know which hazard I would consider more pertinent to avoid in my own daily life. You can drive defensively and just not drink, you can't exactly climb a ladder defensively no matter how sober you are.
- trothamel 3y ago
  That's not true. According to: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622... Most studies that look at it show that fault is about equal in bike/car collisions. Given that, it's worth looking to see what the outcome is - and for the same trip, you'll be safer in a car.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    The other biker definitely isn't safer for it.
    - trothamel 3y ago
      That's by virtue of being on the riskier vehicle - kind of my point. The choice to ride a bicycle has consequences.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
What you're seeing there is the failure of traffic engineers to design safe systems for people outside of a motor vehicle, because they're myopically focused on maximum throughput.

uoaei 3y ago

Cars are the ones hitting bicycles, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here about what the statistics show.

akira2501 3y ago
Falls, in general, more commonly kill people than vehicles. It's not a perfect trade for safety. There's always factors that need to be actually measured.
- thfuran 3y ago
  No, they don't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#/media/File%3ACauses_of_accidental_death_by_age_group.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#...
  - akira2501 3y ago
    I have significant issues with that chart. The source is the authors own work and it's not referenced or published anywhere else. The single reference is a 23 year old CDC report from which the author has extracted ICD codes from incomplete data charts that this report uses as a limited reference. He also missed the fact that "Other and Non specified" categories include ICD codes that directly specify falls. Just falls from or to various circumstances that aren't covered by the basic W codes. It's a bad chart, "They appear not to," would be more accurate, but I tend to think this chart was made with appearances as a priority over accuracy and understanding.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Alright, a different and more recent source shows it being significantly closer but still with motor vehicles leading: https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/nsc-statement-on-new-cdc-data-showing-a-rise-in-accidental-death https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/nsc-statement-on-new-cdc...
      - akira2501 3y ago
        Well, if you accept their notions of "preventable" and the categorizations that result. A vehicular death from DUI is still preventable in the vehicular category? Are we suggesting the vehicle was the primary cause or the alcohol? Are we trying to make vehicles safe enough for drunks to drive? If not, then this scheme is a little out of whack for what I was trying to get at. Or what anyone who doesn't have an prejudiced agenda against vehicles would want to know. Those statistics also include pedestrians who got hit, and motorcyclists who met the end of their road. Those two together are 32% of the total. Again, is the vehicle at fault here, or risky behavior? Which are we trying to measure? At face value, you are right, though; however, it's still pretty close and the rate of change suggests a crossing. In either case, I know which hazard I would consider more pertinent to avoid in my own daily life. You can drive defensively and just not drink, you can't exactly climb a ladder defensively no matter how sober you are.
trothamel 3y ago
That's not true. According to: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622... Most studies that look at it show that fault is about equal in bike/car collisions. Given that, it's worth looking to see what the outcome is - and for the same trip, you'll be safer in a car.
- thfuran 3y ago
  The other biker definitely isn't safer for it.
  - trothamel 3y ago
    That's by virtue of being on the riskier vehicle - kind of my point. The choice to ride a bicycle has consequences.

NegativeLatency 3y ago

What you're seeing there is the failure of traffic engineers to design safe systems for people outside of a motor vehicle, because they're myopically focused on maximum throughput.