"Danger! Danger!" - or not!

Liste des GroupesRevenir à rb tech 
Sujet : "Danger! Danger!" - or not!
De : frkrygow (at) *nospam* sbcglobal.net (Frank Krygowski)
Groupes : rec.bicycles.tech
Date : 31. May 2025, 01:43:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <101djao$ohj7$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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
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!
--
- Frank Krygowski

Date Sujet#  Auteur
31 May 25 * "Danger! Danger!" - or not!21Frank Krygowski
31 May 25 +* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!2AMuzi
1 Jun 25 i`- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Frank Krygowski
31 May 25 +- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
31 May 25 +* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!3Roger Merriman
31 May 25 i+- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
1 Jun 25 i`- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1zen cycle
31 May 25 +* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!6Roger Merriman
1 Jun 25 i`* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!5Frank Krygowski
1 Jun 25 i +* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!2Roger Merriman
1 Jun 25 i i`- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
1 Jun 25 i +- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
1 Jun 25 i `- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Frank Krygowski
1 Jun 25 `* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!8Frank Krygowski
1 Jun 25  +- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
1 Jun 25  `* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!6Frank Krygowski
1 Jun 25   `* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!5Catrike Ryder
1 Jun 25    `* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!4Frank Krygowski
1 Jun 25     +- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder
3 Jun 25     `* Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!2zen cycle
3 Jun 25      `- Re: "Danger! Danger!" - or not!1Catrike Ryder

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal