From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Risk ratio (was: Ticketing illegal cycling)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:02:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov5.210207.22987
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <rlewis.720943708@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:
>
>That may be your experience from one trip to the hospital, but the
>published reports from the U.K. would seem to indicate otherwise.  The 
>British Medical Association in summarizing the literature on cycling
>accidents comes to a different conclusion:
>
>	The principal problem is the extent to which the under-reporting
>	of accidents varies with different travel methods, situations,
>	and severities of injury.  There is much evidence that people do
>	not always report cycle accidents.

I wonder if this doesn't mean that there are such slight injuries that
it doesn't make any sense to report them? What is to be gained other
than having self-proclaimed experts using such figures as "proof" that
bicycling is unsafe?

>As the BMA study suggests, and fairly consistant with the North American
>findings, the accident reports of the police are unreliable as regards
>cycling accidents.

Again, you are making the assumption, and a highly unwarranted one at that,
that these 'accidents' are significant. As a matter of fact, in states
that require reporting of auto accidents they all have a lower limit
at which point the accident isn't reported. There are literally
thousands of accidents every day that aren't reported because they fall
below the minimum damage to be reportable. Of the half dozen accidents
that I've been in in my 32 or more years behind the wheel, only 2 were
reported. Perhaps half. Yet you would seem to have no disagreement that
not reporting such accidents skews the statistics would you?

>People report car-car collisions, even when no injuries
>are involved, because of the damage sustained by the cars and the desire
>of the not guilty party to get the other or the other's insurance agent
>to pay for the damage.

Just the opposite is my experience. A person that causes a relatively
minor accident will often pay out-of-pocket in order to prevent his
insurance company from finding out. The increase in premiums for even
a minor accidents can far more than offset the cost of repairs.

>As I have not seen this study I can not comment on either its results or
>methodology, though if the study correctly represents the conditions
>in Edinburgh then Edinburgh is quite different from any other areas
>of the world which I have seen studies of.

This study of _every_ fall on a bike is probably by far the most
indicative of the studies of bicycle safety hazards. I would suggest
that this same finding would be found in any other area. It certainly
corresponds completely with my experiences over the last five years.
>
>>If bike-bike accidents on segregated cycliways are a serious problem 
>>in some parts of the world, then why not direct campaigning effort towards 
>>upgrading the paths - adequate widths, centre dividing lines and improved 
>>road crossing facilities?  Compared with the cost of the original construction, 
>It is questionable if such is possible, I have never seen any designs
>which have shown an increase in cyclists safety especially at
>intersections (where it is most important).

I certainly agree with this. It is curious that those people wishing
to make bicycling 'safer' often ignore the statistics that show
their methods as being less safe. In some cases I have detected special
interests but in most it just seems to be people convinced of their
own infallibility.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc