Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!
Date: 1 Jun 2025 10:01:03 GMT
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <ma2mmvFcj0aU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <101djao$ohj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <ma18rtF5k19U1@mid.individual.net>
 <101g7aq$1hvsg$3@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 7JiT+7JbtthBrSHA6Ij6hwnqrRmq84NZekmx7f4G2VbAk1U8mW
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZLtJoD+ULH2iInEzovo4yulNGxk= sha1:P9hjlkcVGe4LaDXMEkaJcR3VSBE= sha256:VjCJ24LHU8LcBVRZRcQrkBlNCreX/+RiBMOEMg/eoDY=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6 (iPad)
Bytes: 5271

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2025 4:58 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> I'm constantly amazed at the "Danger! Danger!" warnings heaped on
>>> ordinary bicycling. It seems that millions of people "know" that one
>>> cannot be safe riding a bike unless they wear a very weird styrofoam
>>> hat; or garish, hi-viz clothing; or run bright lights front and back,
>>> even in full daylight; or ride only on flat, boring multi-use paths,
>>> because riding anywhere near motor vehicles can't possibly be safe.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Yet research comparisons between various activities almost always show
>>> ordinary cycling (i.e. not gonzo off-road downhilling) to be quite safe.
>>> I came across another relevant research paper today: "Active Living and
>>> Injury Risk" by Parkkari, in the International Journal of Sports Medicine.
>>> http://bionics.seas.ucla.edu/education/Rowing/Injury_2004_01.pdf
>>> 
>> Your missing the point that if something feels risky, or isn’t wildly
>> comfortable to do, your unlikely to persuade folks to do so particularly if
>> it generally for leisure.
> 
> One way something can "feel" risky is if the person has been subject to 
> years of propaganda claiming it's risky. People tend to believe those 
> sorts of warnings, true or not. My point is that the warnings typically 
> given regarding bicycling are grossly exaggerated, and perhaps purposely 
> dishonest.
> 
Admittedly we don’t have quite the same level of sensational journalism
that you do, but I think that’s a bit of red herring, I can see it putting
off people trying a bike, but unlikely to alter their perception of which
roads feel safe/pleasant or not.

As ever roads designed for highspeed motorists are unlikely to be
particularly pleasant places for cycling or any other modes such as walking
and so on.
>> 
>>> They used extensive surveys to evaluate risk of injuries per 1000 hours
>>> of activity in dozens of activities. Here are results for some common
>>> activities - with lower numbers being better:
>>> 
>>> Ordinary (e.g. commuting) bicycling: 0.42 injuries per 1000 hours.
>>> Walking;   0.19 injuries per 1000 hours
>>> Gardening: 1.01
>>> Home Repair: 0.54
>>> Basketball: 9.1
>>> Soccer: 7.8
>>> Tennis: 4.7
>>> Badminton: 4.6
>>> Running: 3.6
>>> Competitive cycling: 2.0
>>> Dancing: 0.7 injuries per 1000 hours.
>>> 
>>> So if you're afraid to ride a bike on a normal road, you should be more
>>> afraid of gardening. (And this is not the only study that found
>>> gardening to be riskier than cycling!) Also, think twice before going
>>> dancing, let alone the scary sport of badminton!
>>> 
>>> BTW, the paper says "when commuting to shop, office or school it is
>>> safer to walk rather than ride a bike." I think that's a mistake. Since
>>> whatever shop you're heading for is a fixed distance away, what matters
>>> is the risk per km or per mile, not per hour. Bicycling's per hour risk
>>> was found to be 2.2 times that of walking; but I think almost all
>>> bicyclists ride faster than 6.6 miles per hour - that is, faster than
>>> 2.2 times the normal walking pace of 3 mph. So per mile, cycling is
>>> safer than walking, a fact that pops up consistently in relative risk
>>> studies.
>>> 
>>> Zen is apparently the only one posting here who still races. He should
>>> take comfort in the fact that they found racing to be safer than badminton!
>>> 
>>> 
>> Probably differs on type of injury’s some folks MTB for example do jumps
>> and so on, and so do ride with armour such as back protection/full face
>> helmets, my new hydration pack is one of few that doesn’t have a back
>> protection built in from that brand.
> If you read the paper, you'll see they surveyed about 3500 people 
> repeatedly over a year. That should result in data that represents the 
> actual practices of participants during the time they participate in 
> each activity. So as with Tom's "descending mountains in the rain at 58 
> mph" I suspect the time doing jumps in full face helmets and body armor 
> is a small sliver of the total time spent riding bikes. Also note they 
> had a separate category for what I call "ordinary" cycling - they called 
> it cycling as a "commuting activity" or more accurately, cycling as 
> transportation, to just get somewhere.
> 
> 
Roger Merriman