FFS edukator. The thread had died a death. Think of moleys blood pressure will you?
Chat Forum
Young babies on bikes
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
In 2002, the rate of passenger (and that's all passengers, adults and kids) deaths per BILLION passenger kilometres for bicycles was 29.5. Whichever way you look at it, that's a vanishingly small number. If you rode 10 miles a day every day for your entire life, dying (of natural causes, naturally) at 80, you'd rack up less than half a million km. Or 1/2000 of a billion. The expected number of deaths per 500,000km is 0.01. Which looks like decent odds to me
(And yes, for cars it was 2.8 per billion, but when the numbers are this small the comparison seems almost irrelevant.)
Both are small chances yes, but isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance?
Perhaps that is why Molgrips chooses as he does? It really doesn't seem that odd a decision to me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance
Given the car figure includes motorway travel (a quick wiki suggests 9.3 per billion for non motorway) and the cyclist figure includes children in charge of the vehicle, the actual difference is far, far less than that for any given journey.Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, you really need to disaggregate the data before it makes any sense. Otherwise you're just counting the wrong stuff.
Incidentally, where is everyone getting all this data from? or is it just report summaries?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one
For example, it would appear in distance travelled, the bike is in fact 8 times more dangerous than the car when it comes to serious or fatal accident rates, but of course more people are killed each year in the car.
but isn't another way of interpreting that to say you are 10 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car for a journey of a set distance?
It is possible to weight these stats differently form you and decide n a different course of action without either course being emotive.
Imagineif I was to satr t saying you ar eonly saying as you do becaus eyou are callous and uncaring about children. i would watch my language if I were you - you dont mean the offence but it is often suggested in your posts.Posted 1 year ago # -
Its not a logical decision not to take a child on a bike - its an emotive one.
If all data says death rates are higher on bikes per mile travelled than cars then I really don't follow how you can say it not a logical decision.
And if considering a single incident that has the same likelihood of happening, however small, whether you are travelling by bike or car, for instance being rear ended by a truck, it would seem logical (not to mention obvious) that your chances of survival are higher in a car than a bike.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Damo the point is that it is so unlikely that an accident will happen that the risk is insignificant. To avoid doing something because of an insignificant risk is not rational behaviour. Especially when the same person will do another activity that caries a similar insignificant risk without even questioning it.
The odds on being involved in a serious accident on a bike are millions to one per journey undertaken.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ok so you agree cars a safer by some multiple (stats can argue about exactly how much), just think that the risk of dying on a bike is so small (albeit more likely than in a car) it is not worth worrying about.
I'd agree with that, but I don't think you can really take your position that everyone else should have the same attitude to risk as you and call them irrational and so on.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Damo's point about bikes being statistically more dangerous per km than cars is a fact. Why not just tell him he's right. The stats don't include people dying of car use related illnesses.
The risk of using a bicycle is still acceptable to most people and becomes even more acceptable when you look at the causes of death to bicycle users and realise that the most dangerous situations are easily avoided.
I can't be bothered to Google and link but stats for France showed that fatalities were mostly riders going down the inside/outside of turning trucks and jumping red lights. Stay sober, don't use naughty substances, don't do the thing you know are dangerous and you are only likely to find yourself in one of the very rare merde happens categories. In 80km on the road today I didn't feel threatened once and the bigggest risk I took was riding with my shirt off for an hour, skin cancer being another possible cause of my death. Now if only Mark Haines had ridden his bike to work.
Posted 1 year ago # -
car use related illnesses
LOL. Passive driving?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Damo - yes - and getting in a car carries a similarly very small risk. Teh lack of rationality is that a million to one chance is too risky ( a bike) but a ten million to one chance ( a car) is not too risky.
An insignificant risk is an insignificant risk. Considering you will do far more miles in a car the actual risk per journey is similar - so its not rational to say this journey on a bike is too risky but this journey in a car is not too risky - when the risk is similar and infinitiesimal
Posted 1 year ago # -
Higher incidences of heart problems, musculoskeletal and digestive system disorders, hemorrhoids, and abesity. (from the occupational hazards of taxi driving).
Posted 1 year ago # -
I point out the inevitable consequence of living your car-bound, centrally-heated lifestyle
CAR BOUND? WTF? I'M A DIE HARD FRIGGING CYCLIST!
Jesus H Christ on a mother **** tandem!
This is utterly futile. You are arguing with a figment of your own imagination created from half-comprehended snippets of my posts. So I'll leave you to it. Why not invent more ways you can slag off this imaginary person yourself, I'm not needed!
Posted 1 year ago # -
abesity? you mean abeastie?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ok so you agree cars a safer by some multiple (stats can argue about exactly how much), just think that the risk of dying on a bike is so small (albeit more likely than in a car) it is not worth worrying about.
It's not worth worrying about if you don't worry about the risk of dying in a car (which with my fairly basic re-interpretation of the stats is no better than twice as safe per mile travelled). Of course if the only reason for deciding on a means of transport is your risk of being killed due to an accident on that journey you'd pick the car every time. The thing is that's not the only reason we choose to do things (otherwise we'd never go mountain biking), and the actual difference in rate of risks is small enough that other factors (such as that my kids far prefer going on the bike to in the car) come into play.Meanwhile your chances of dying of other things than in an accident on the road are so much higher, you're surely better off working on minimising those risks than the risk of road transport. My personal anecdotal evidence is that being exposed to going cycling with me makes my kids far more keen on going cycling themselves, and hence far more likely to establish a lifestyle including exercise than those of my neighbours who don't go on similar bike trips.
Oh, and phwoar 'undred
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, Molgrips, how many km a year do your vehicles do a year (you, Mrs grips and offspring) and how many kms do you do a year by bike? And just how committed is that? Why not provide the info rather than complain about my mind reading ability.
In my case it's been around 10 000km by bike and 5 000km by car/van in recent years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yeah, molgrips but how big is your dunda?
Posted 1 year ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
FFS edukator. The thread had died a death. Think of moleys blood pressure will you?
Now look what you have done. Tut tut.
molgrips - Member
I point out the inevitable consequence of living your car-bound, centrally-heated lifestyle
CAR BOUND? WTF? I'M A DIE HARD FRIGGING CYCLIST!
Jesus H Christ on a mother **** tandem!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am a keen cyclist. Mrs Grips is not. I cycle where I can, Mrs Grips can't manage much.
If you think I am posting stats for your judgement then you can F right off.
Our typical family journeys in Cardiff involve going into Roath or town, or to one of two supermarkets. Town is too far for Mrs Grips to cycle currently, and the roads are unpleasant. However there are ways to work around that. The supermarkets are walking distance. So where should we cycle to?
When Mrs Grips is no longer pregnant and has had a chance to recover and get some fitness back, I'm sure we'll be cycling into town.
Posted 1 year ago # -
In my case it's been around 10 000km by bike and 5 000km by car/van in recent years.
Buy a better car?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Madame rode her bike throughout pregnancy. One lunchtime swimming session when nine months pregnant she said she felt tired and requested going by car. Strange. After only 1200m swimming she got out the pool. Very strange. A couple of hours later she requested another car journey, to the hospital to give birth.
I'll gladly F right off later, Madame willing. So as I'm willing to F right off how about some stats for my judgement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I see a tangent ahead!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Did I tell you my mum fell off her bike when 9 months pregnant with me?
Didn't do me no harm
Posted 1 year ago # -
Debatable
Posted 1 year ago # -
Madame rode her bike throughout pregnancy.
I guess your wife is fitter and stronger than mine then!
I'll gladly F right off later, Madame willing. So as I'm willing to F right off how about some stats for my judgement
I think you mis-understood!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Edukator - some stats about how fit and strong your wife is please.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Damo the point is that it is so unlikely that an accident will happen that the risk is insignificant. To avoid doing something because of an insignificant risk is not rational behaviour. Especially when the same person will do another activity that caries a similar insignificant risk without even questioning it.
The odds on being involved in a serious accident on a bike are millions to one per journey undertaken.
you are overstating your case.
irrational [ meaning devoid of reason] would be to repeatedly buy a lottery ticket when no one can win. Rational would be to accept the chances are very small but that it could be you. As there is a risk associated with cycling then to choose not to do it cannot be considered to be irrational. It would be irrational if it was 100% safe. It may be a case of failing to do a risk assessment adequately, overly cautious or a variety of other things but NOT irrational. I can see your point that statistically it is safer[ depending on course on which statistics you look at] but it is BS to claim irrationality that displays your arrogance in your own judgements.
You really dont understand how anyone can assess risk differently from you [ helmets, nukes cycling] and think we are all irrational and need educating.
Often when we discuss things that are just opinions you display complete certainty. I am sure molgrips and I can see your point. Why you cannot see ours is beyond me tbh.Posted 1 year ago # -
Well she rode 60 hilly km back from work today (having taken the train to get there) in 30°C sunshine without breaking into a sweat. That's fairly fit. As for strong, she can move 30 school children with only a gentle vibration of her vocal chords.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Synopsis?
Posted 1 year ago # -
JUnkyard
Its the comparison to car usage. Both cycling and car driving with a kid carry a real but tiny risk, To deem one acceptable but the other not seems irrational to me.
Can you explain why a journey in a car with a risk of ten million to one is acceptable but a journey on a bike with a risk of a million to one is not?
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 Junkyard
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can you explain why a journey in a car with a risk of ten million to one is acceptable but a journey on a bike with a risk of a million to one is not?
No one is saying that.
They are saying that the ten fold increase in risk is enough to make them choose the car.
Posted 1 year ago # -
For you or I the choice may be different, I'm not sure why you can't accept (or respect) molgrips or others choice?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Synopsis?
- Bikes are more dangerous than cars
- TJ can't understand how some people wouldn't take their kids on a bike seat/trailer
- Edukator is going on about how fit/strong his wife isPosted 1 year ago # -
I used a trailer from one month old for each of my kids. From around 8 months is a rear mounted bike seat, and am considering a weeride for our 10 month old. I can see why people would be apprehensive about putting kids anywhere near bikes at that young age, but you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
