"Dangerization" and cycling

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless. they don't specify whether they're based on exposure or not.

Lies, damn lies.

CramCycle

Haven't seen the report but I presume it's based on total head injuries across their desk with no regard for exposure levels.

It would be difficult to make it fair on normalisation via time or distance, they include work and crime in there. I presume it's solely based on reported reasons for head injury or what factor was a major contributor ie being in a car, being on a motorbike, being in work, being a victim of crime (could also be the perpetrator), being on a bicycle.

Would have being interesting to register whether in all those scenarios whether the risk was due to the injured party or another party.

RainyDay

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless. they don't specify whether they're based on exposure or not.

You'd also have to wonder about advancements in car safety and airbags etc in 10 years since the stats were collected. In Ireland, random breath testing has resulted in a steady downward trend in the death toll on the roads. Have these developments reduced head injuries?

magicbastarder

they're hard to interpret though as a result. i mean; my chances of suffering a head injury as a result of motorcycling is essentially zero, i've never even sat on a motorbike let alone ridden one. but someone who is a motorbike rider probably has a higher chance than the 13% specified; so the 13% figure probably applies to basically no-one.

purely coincidentally, i've just finished watching a BBC4 program on chance. one thing the presenter mentions is that the chances of dying in a parachute jump are approximately the same as dying in 40 miles of motorbike journeys.

beauf

Its amazing how many time stats are used for a headline, topic of conversation, without any context to give them meaning. Perhaps predictable would be a better description.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

purely coincidentally, i've just finished watching a BBC4 program on chance. one thing the presenter mentions is that the chances of dying in a parachute jump are approximately the same as dying in 40 miles of motorbike journeys.

Was it presented by David Spiegelhalter? Saw a small bit. He's the guy who co-wrote the bike helmet editorial in the BMJ (direct benefit too modest to measure).

Think motorcycling is by all metrics the most hazardous common transport mode.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Was it presented by David Spiegelhalter? Saw a small bit.

that was he. the science was a bit basic but it was a decent show.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

Think motorcycling is by all metrics the most hazardous common transport mode.

Yeah, but...

recedite

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a funny thing, but if you read English prose from the 1600s and 1700s, you'll never see a -ise verb.

Interesting. Gray was the most common spelling of grey on this side of the pond at that time too.

Anyway, I wonder if this "dangerization" topic is relevant to the situation in Holland, where far more people cycle about the place in "normal" clothes on their daily business, and hardly any wear a helmet. It could be that motorists treat them better because
(a) their appearance seems as normal human beings (as opposed to uniformed members of another tribe)
(b) more cyclists around, including lots of kids, so motorists more aware of them.

So in that country where the "dangerization" of cycling seems to be laughed at, could cycling actually be safer?

tomasrojo

This doesn't really belong in the hi-viz megathread. It's potentially the phase after hi-viz in "co-accumulation"(*) and, arguably, dangerisation.

we went to visit Trek last week and the brand is really keen to promote the use of rear lights during the day. It even had the members of Trek Factory Racing ride the prologue of this year’s Tour de France on time trial bikes fitted with the Flare R “to promote awareness of the most important cycling accessory available today”.

http://road.cc/content/feature/159493-trend-spotting-should-we-all-be-using-lights-daytime



(*)

Some people who did begin acquiring safety-related items referred to the co-accumulation of multiple safety items. This suggests the potential operation of a dynamic whereby the expected level of safety gear continues to increase. If one function of safety gear is, as suggested above, a visual demonstration that a cyclist is not a risk-taker, then it might not be surprising that once an item (e.g. helmets) becomes widespread, other items take its place as signalling one’s distance from the ‘typical’ dangerous cyclist (c.f. Aldred 2013)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95424808&postcount=1261

tomasrojo

As someone once put it very well:

Lumen wrote: »

Great, so we're now competing with the sun, which apparently produces around 400 billion billion billion lumens. Plenty of scope for upgrades.

magicbastarder

comment from damian o'tuama on dangerisation of cycling published in the IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/we-need-to-tackle-the-real-dangers-facing-cyclists-on-the-roads-1.2310268

oakley2097

This thread hurt my head

niceonetom

oakley2097 wrote: »

This thread hurt my head

Were you not wearing your internet helmet?

Your own fault so.

oakley2097

Should the thread not have a trigger warning

I was just reading along

tomasrojo

Gamble et al.'s "dagnerization" study in the (cycling) news:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycling-is-dangerous-doesn-t-repel-would-be-cyclists-finds-st/018325

In order to increase cycling levels throughout the country and to bring about the enormous benefits active transport can bring to an individual’s health and the wider environment we need to rethink how it’s promoted with a renewed focus on the enjoyment it can bring.

As mentioned at the top of the thread, they didn't find any evidence that talking about safety precautions puts people off cycling.

This bit in the bikebiz report is interesting:

In recent years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has indicated that more cycling would dramatically improve public health - indeed, the WHO has speculated that an increase in the number of trips by bike could be ‘the single best thing’ a society could do for public health.

Don't know the source of the claim though.

tomasrojo

Good article, I think, about the "drip drip drip" of bad news stories that misrepresent cycling as a deadly activity.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2015/11/04/rick-vosper-haunted-ghosts-dead-cyclists?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.VjqXlTZOfDs

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I've used Gamble et al.'s spelling of "dangerization" in the thread title. Tell the OED that -ize spellings aren't acceptable if it bothers you.)

When I was a babby I was told that verbs derived from Latin got the 'ise' spelling and those from Greek got the 'ize' spelling. Made it easier in those days when people learned Latin and Greek. Around the 1980s most newspapers in Ireland standardised all ises to esses. I think the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors may still carry a list of which common words take which ending.

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

When I was a babby I was told that verbs derived from Latin got the 'ise' spelling and those from Greek got the 'ize' spelling. Made it easier in those days when people learned Latin and Greek. Around the 1980s most newspapers in Ireland standardised all ises to esses. I think the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors may still carry a list of which common words take which ending.

That's made me very happy to know. Mmmmm grammar!

tomasrojo

Most of the early -ize/-ise words arrived in English via Latin or French, often originating further back in Greek. Don't think there ever was a usage split between Latin-derived and Greek-derived words. The -ize spelling was originally used in England, and it's the one the Americans retained in their spelling system.

There are some words that never take -ize in any spelling system, such as "promise", "advertise", "surprise", "devise", which are all from Latin, often via French, but it doesn't work as a general rule. There are plenty of words from Latin that were initially spelt -ize and still are in America, such as "actualize" (from about 1800).

KingBrian2

I saw a plonker on a bike the other day on his phone, both hands off the handlebars. Mind you he had a helmet but he was just looking and playing with his phone. It may have been safe to do so though it struck me as being highly dangerous. He might end up in hospital and the people cribbing about too many people on trolleys will complain about the HSE so that guy had better wise up and keep two of his hands on the Bike giving us sensible cyclists a bad reputation. Damn plonker.

Qualitymark

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I saw a plonker on a bike the other day on his phone, both hands off the handlebars. Mind you he had a helmet but he was just looking and playing with his phone. It may have been safe to do so though it struck me as being highly dangerous. He might end up in hospital and the people cribbing about too many people on trolleys will complain about the HSE so that guy had better wise up and keep two of his hands on the Bike giving us sensible cyclists a bad reputation. Damn plonker.

Was taught how to do this (but warned not to do it in traffic, or indeed most of the time) by CTC members years ago. "Imagine," they said, "that your bottom is very, very fat." Doing that centres your weight lower, somehow. It worked!

As for the trolleys, it's my belief that a good-sized part of the problem is ill drug-users; and for that the only real solution is for the State to start making clean drugs of a standard dosage, and giving them saor-in-aisce - from clean needles, in hygienic clinics - to registered addicts. That will mean the end of the many infections and complications suffered by people using street drugs now.

I'd also be inclined to set up a huge intake for A&E, with a single hospital dealing with it instead of different hospitals each night. In that I'd have alcohol testing at intake, and all those who are very drunk would be routed into a separate intake and treated separately. The non-drunk would be routed to the apposite hospitals or treated on site…

But then people working in A&E and on the wards will have more expert advice than I do. If only the succession of ministers would listen to them.

Lumen

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I saw a plonker on a bike the other day on his phone, both hands off the handlebars. Mind you he had a helmet but he was just looking and playing with his phone. It may have been safe to do so though it struck me as being highly dangerous. He might end up in hospital and the people cribbing about too many people on trolleys will complain about the HSE so that guy had better wise up and keep two of his hands on the Bike giving us sensible cyclists a bad reputation. Damn plonker.

I regularly read e-mail while cycling no-hands, though not on busy roads. Usually through the Phoenix Park on the way to work. Maybe it was me!

Your statement "It may have been safe to do so though it struck me as being highly dangerous" seems a bit contradictory, and I'm not sure how you know that he was "playing with his phone". People do use these handheld computer things for productive purposes.

Anyway, it's all a bit off-topic.

Qualitymark

WHO last month:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/reducing-climate-pollutants/en/

Evidence from previous WHO studies on healthy transport already suggest that shifts to mass transport and the introduction of safe walking and cycling networks are relatively inexpensive when compared with the loss of life and costs of treating people for air-pollution related illnesses, traffic injuries and diseases related to physical inactivity.

Carawaystick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I saw a plonker on a bike the other day on his phone, both hands off the handlebars.

What's wrong with cycling hands free?



You might have a slower time to hit the brakes but so has someone using the tops of road bike bars.
Next you'll be calling someone holding the tops of a road bar a plonker because they can't immediately hit the brakes.
And then it'll be someone not already feathering their brakes...

KingBrian2

Carawaystick wrote: »

What's wrong with cycling hands free?



You might have a slower time to hit the brakes but so has someone using the tops of road bike bars.
Next you'll be calling someone holding the tops of a road bar a plonker because they can't immediately hit the brakes.
And then it'll be someone not already feathering their brakes...

Cycling with hands free looking at your phone is an accident waiting to happen.

CramCycle

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Cycling with hands free looking at your phone is an accident waiting to happen.

I still think the guy eating the 4 in 1 hands free while cycling past Clonskeagh hospital was the most impressive

eeeee

I'm mainly jealous of handsfree cycling. I have the confidence to go handsfree only when no one else is watching

KingBrian2

gadetra wrote: »

I'm mainly jealous of handsfree cycling. I have the confidence to go handsfree only when no one else is watching

I don't feel comfortable cycling hands free I know it can be done safely by experienced riders but it gives out a bad image and makes cyclists look like they are not taking notice of pedestrians and motorists all around them.

eeeee

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't feel comfortable cycling hands free I know it can be done safely by experienced riders but it gives out a bad image and makes cyclists look like they are not taking notice of pedestrians and motorists all around them.

I disagree. I think it's a useful, nay vital bike handling skill. It's something I practiced for that reason. It's good for your balance and core too. I really don't think it gives out a bad image at all, I think it takes skill, balance, and good handling skills to do so. I ride with people who are rock solid hands free. I wholeheartedly disagree with it being a bad image. They most definitely take notice of what's around them! I genuinely don't understand how it can be construed as being a bad image? Texting on you phone and not looking around you or such like but cycling no handed? I don't see how that can be seen badly?

Even strangers I don't know, I think 'skills' :pac: But seriously, I have taken things out of my pockets, eaten, fiddled around looking for stuff in the back of my jersey one handed (no handed only on my own!), or in and out of my bag when commuting and maintained the ability to look around me, see and hear. It can be done.