[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:49:45 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>And another reason is that the driving stats contain a lot more
>middle-aged women drivers, who are unusually safe drivers, and the
>cycling stats contain a lot more young men, who are unusually dangerous
>on anything with wheels.


If you're talikng percentages rather than absolute figures, that would
make sense. What proportion of motorists are dangerous young men? And
what proportion of cyclists? Any stats?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> Not in a discussion about safety, it isn't.


So you always take the train rather than drive when it's a realistic
option? No? Then this isn't just a discussion about safety, is it?

> If you can draw some comfort from the fact that, although you're far
> more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car per n miles, this is
> partly because you take longer on the bike, then go ahead.


I don't get overly hung up about my safety on a bike, any more than it
bothers me that I'm more likely to have a fatal accident ski touring or
sea kayaking than if playing table tennis, because it's safe /enough/ to
be basically reliable if I take a little care and it confers significant
benefits to me.

To quote from BMJ 2000;321:1582-1585, Three lessons for a better cycling
future, Malcolm J Wardlaw

"One problem with comparing the safety of driving and cycling is that
the population that cycles differs from that which drives. The average
driver is trained, tested, will have about two decades of experience,
and is to a degree regulated. The average cyclist is young, male,
untutored, unregulated, not wealthy, riding a badly equipped machine on
busy urban streets, and in the minority. Nearly half of all cyclists
ride only occasionally, and most regular cyclists will do so for only a
few years. Clearly there are potent risk factors here that confound
comparisons based on averages. Adults aged 17-20 in the United Kingdom
are probably less likely to be killed per hour cycled than hour driven
and the danger inflicted on others will be fractional. Experienced
cyclists, like experienced drivers, have far better accident rates,
suggesting that a given individual should not be at greater risk of
death or serious injury per hour cycled than driven. There are not
enough skilful, experienced cyclists on Britain's roads, however.
Notwithstanding the above, it still takes at least 8000 years of average
cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22 000 years
for one death"

If you're so hung up about safety then there are safer things you can do
than drive, and safer hobbies than recreational walking. Any more red
herrings you want to wave about?

You may wish to note that typically about a person a day is killed
falling downstairs or tripping, so I hope for your sake you live in a
bungalow and use protective clothing on any other stairs you might
encounter...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Pete,

I've recently got a new bike - not expensive in cycling terms, but the
best, lightest one I've ever had. I think it's sort of a mountain bike
in style: it's a Ridgeback Switch Cyclone
(http://www.ridgebackbikes.co.uk/).

Anyway, I'm wondering wehther I should be able to ride it to work. I'd
like to, and I'd be willing to leave suits at work and change there
after a shower, but I'm not a cyclist so I'm not sure what sort of
distances are feasible.

It's about 14 miles to where I work, and it's a mixture of roads and
cycle paths. Is that the sort of distance I should be able to build up
to doing regularly on that bike, d'you think?

Many thanks for any help.



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:45:40 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> Not in a discussion about safety, it isn't.

>
>So you always take the train rather than drive when it's a realistic
>option? No? Then this isn't just a discussion about safety, is it?


I never take the train - it's unreliable and full of anti-smoking
types!

>
>> If you can draw some comfort from the fact that, although you're far
>> more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car per n miles, this is
>> partly because you take longer on the bike, then go ahead.

>
>I don't get overly hung up about my safety on a bike, any more than it
>bothers me that I'm more likely to have a fatal accident ski touring or
>sea kayaking than if playing table tennis, because it's safe /enough/ to
>be basically reliable if I take a little care and it confers significant
>benefits to me.
>
>To quote from BMJ 2000;321:1582-1585, Three lessons for a better cycling
>future, Malcolm J Wardlaw
>
>"One problem with comparing the safety of driving and cycling is that
>the population that cycles differs from that which drives. The average
>driver is trained, tested, will have about two decades of experience,
>and is to a degree regulated. The average cyclist is young, male,
>untutored, unregulated, not wealthy, riding a badly equipped machine on
>busy urban streets, and in the minority. Nearly half of all cyclists
>ride only occasionally, and most regular cyclists will do so for only a
>few years. Clearly there are potent risk factors here that confound
>comparisons based on averages. Adults aged 17-20 in the United Kingdom
>are probably less likely to be killed per hour cycled than hour driven
>and the danger inflicted on others will be fractional. Experienced
>cyclists, like experienced drivers, have far better accident rates,
>suggesting that a given individual should not be at greater risk of
>death or serious injury per hour cycled than driven. There are not
>enough skilful, experienced cyclists on Britain's roads, however.
>Notwithstanding the above, it still takes at least 8000 years of average
>cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22 000 years
>for one death"
>
>If you're so hung up about safety


I'm not - I feel reasonably safe in the car and completely safe on
foot.

> then there are safer things you can do
>than drive, and safer hobbies than recreational walking. Any more red
>herrings you want to wave about?
>
>You may wish to note that typically about a person a day is killed
>falling downstairs or tripping, so I hope for your sake you live in a
>bungalow and use protective clothing on any other stairs you might
>encounter...


I really don't see what this has to do with your suggestion that
cycling is safer - it was you that raised it, wasn't it?

Anyway, Pete, this is going nowhere. Let's call it a day on this shall
we, after any reply you might want to give to this.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:
>
> I'm not - I feel reasonably safe in the car and completely safe on
> foot.


DFT figures for 2002

fatality rate per billion passenger kilometres

Pedal cycle..................30
Pedestrian...................44

Didn't you suggest that casualties per unit distance is the Gold
Standard to which we should refer?

> I really don't see what this has to do with your suggestion that
> cycling is safer - it was you that raised it, wasn't it?


You asked (on March 16th) "but is it safer?" and I responded that it's
rather comparing apples with oranges. So no, it was you that raised it,
and not me.

> Anyway, Pete, this is going nowhere. Let's call it a day on this shall
> we, after any reply you might want to give to this.


Fine by me, but if you want to imply that anything from anyone in the
green movement is ignorable rubbish fit only for ridicule because /some/
folk within it make rather extreme predictions, or that cars cause no
problems because you personally don't have any from them, then I will
respond with a sense of humour bypass because I do regard these as very
important and directly connected with the UK recreational walker, and
which aren't laughing matters.

For a change of topic, Roos has recently got some Silva orienteering
shoes with wee metal studs mounted on top of the rubber ones, which
might give you a better purchase on those wet slippy rocks you were
having trouble with. Didn't say anything about them before because I
didn't know about them...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peewiglet wrote:

> I've recently got a new bike - not expensive in cycling terms, but the
> best, lightest one I've ever had. I think it's sort of a mountain bike
> in style: it's a Ridgeback Switch Cyclone
> (http://www.ridgebackbikes.co.uk/).


The Magic Point where the rubbish stops is above some point in the
£150-£200 area IMHO, so given that you've got a bike with no pointless
frills like cheapo suspension and disc brakes (these are /great/ when
done properly, but for low end bikes they aren't) for over that figure
it's actually a good one. In car terms it might be a Ford rather than
an Aston Martin, but it certainly isn't a Lada.

If I were you I'd put some mudguards and a rack on it. Bikes tend to
come without 'guards in the UK because the market believes that people
want "sporty" and mudguards are not sporty. But they do stop you being
covered with a stream of rather unpleasant cack every time the road is
wet, which may be a moot point if you're a mountain biker riding through
rivers or a racer shaving off grammes, but for A to B riding it's /very/
good! SKS make some of the best ones, and 'guards with a mudflap are
better than ones without.
Racks are similarly regarded as uncool and most UK riders seem to sport
rucksacks. More fool them, as you've got a nice strong weight bearing
frame and it's far, far, far more comfortable for that to take the
weight of any baggage. Rucksacks are better for some applications, but
only a few, and panniers/rack packs/bar bags etc. are simply better ways
to take stuff with you in most cases.

> Anyway, I'm wondering wehther I should be able to ride it to work. I'd
> like to, and I'd be willing to leave suits at work and change there
> after a shower, but I'm not a cyclist so I'm not sure what sort of
> distances are feasible.
>
> It's about 14 miles to where I work, and it's a mixture of roads and
> cycle paths. Is that the sort of distance I should be able to build up
> to doing regularly on that bike, d'you think?


You should be able to, though I wouldn't start with that all at once on
a working day! There are plenty of folk doing those sorts of distances
so it's not unheard of, especially if it's left for nicer days through
summer.
First thing I'd do is have a look over in uk.rec.cycling, which is
another good example of Why Usenet Groups Are A Good Thing: helpful and
full of experience with a good signal to noise ratio. Only tip before
wading into u.r.c. is not to tell anyone they're mad not to wear a
helmet before you google on them a bit and/or read www.cyclehelmets.org
first...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:55:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>For a change of topic, Roos has recently got some Silva orienteering
>shoes with wee metal studs mounted on top of the rubber ones, which
>might give you a better purchase on those wet slippy rocks you were
>having trouble with. Didn't say anything about them before because I
>didn't know about them...


I may take a look come pay day.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Peewiglet <[email protected]> writes:

> Anyway, I'm wondering wehther I should be able to ride it to
> work. I'd like to, and I'd be willing to leave suits at work and
> change there after a shower, but I'm not a cyclist so I'm not sure
> what sort of distances are feasible.
>
> It's about 14 miles to where I work, and it's a mixture of roads and
> cycle paths. Is that the sort of distance I should be able to build
> up to doing regularly on that bike, d'you think?


Well I'm exceptionally unfit and 3 miles is pretty easy (and getting
easier). A 20 mile round trip to Worcester on Saturday was pushing my
limits but still a good day out.

14 miles each way shouldn't be too bad, assuming you're quite a bit
fitter than me and it's reasonably level overall. My mate does 13-14
each way to work and he seems fine with it and is no superman.

Give it a go. Pick a nice day when it doesn't matter if you're a bit
late and try it out.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR
 

>
>>I just wonder how much freetime some people have.

>
>Loads, thanks to the internal combustion engine!


Not enough... Stuck in a traffic jam.

Richard Webb
 

>BTW the British are stoned. *We* are kilogrammed ;-)


Nice one...

A kilo is smaller than a stone.. So we must be completely monged,,,,

Richard Webb
Preferred drug: cider
 
>
>Have I misread that or are you about ten times safer in a car than you
>are on a bicycle?



Probably.. Depends on if your universe has more than one person in it.
Cars - especially Tonka Toys are safe enough for the occupants.. Its
the poor sods on the outside that have to watch out.

Richard Webb
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:16:25 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>If I were you I'd put some mudguards and a rack on it. Bikes tend to
>come without 'guards in the UK because the market believes that people
>want "sporty" and mudguards are not sporty. But they do stop you being
>covered with a stream of rather unpleasant cack every time the road is
>wet, which may be a moot point if you're a mountain biker riding through
>rivers or a racer shaving off grammes, but for A to B riding it's /very/
>good! SKS make some of the best ones, and 'guards with a mudflap are
>better than ones without.


Many thanks - I'll do that. I was planning some, but I didn't know
which ones to go for.

>Racks are similarly regarded as uncool and most UK riders seem to sport
>rucksacks. More fool them, as you've got a nice strong weight bearing
>frame and it's far, far, far more comfortable for that to take the
>weight of any baggage. Rucksacks are better for some applications, but
>only a few, and panniers/rack packs/bar bags etc. are simply better ways
>to take stuff with you in most cases.


This probably sounds like a really daft question, but (assuming a
frame is the little rectangular thing behind the saddle/on top of the
back wheel, that I had on my bike when I was a child) how does one
attach things securely to the frame? Bunji cords, presumably? Does it
make the bike seem unstable when cornering? Would panniers be better?
(I'm thinking of trips to Waitrose, and maybe even camping trips with
the tent in due course.)

[...]
>> It's about 14 miles to where I work, and it's a mixture of roads and
>> cycle paths. Is that the sort of distance I should be able to build up
>> to doing regularly on that bike, d'you think?

>
>You should be able to, though I wouldn't start with that all at once on
>a working day! There are plenty of folk doing those sorts of distances
>so it's not unheard of, especially if it's left for nicer days through
>summer.


That's encouraging - I'll plan to build up to it, then.

>First thing I'd do is have a look over in uk.rec.cycling, which is
>another good example of Why Usenet Groups Are A Good Thing: helpful and
>full of experience with a good signal to noise ratio. Only tip before
>wading into u.r.c. is not to tell anyone they're mad not to wear a
>helmet before you google on them a bit and/or read www.cyclehelmets.org
>first...


Many thanks - I'll take a look :)


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:44:49 +0000, Chris Eilbeck
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>> It's about 14 miles to where I work, and it's a mixture of roads and
>> cycle paths. Is that the sort of distance I should be able to build
>> up to doing regularly on that bike, d'you think?

>
>Well I'm exceptionally unfit and 3 miles is pretty easy (and getting
>easier). A 20 mile round trip to Worcester on Saturday was pushing my
>limits but still a good day out.
>
>14 miles each way shouldn't be too bad, assuming you're quite a bit
>fitter than me and it's reasonably level overall. My mate does 13-14
>each way to work and he seems fine with it and is no superman.
>
>Give it a go. Pick a nice day when it doesn't matter if you're a bit
>late and try it out.


Thanks, Chris - I'll have a go, then :)

I have actually done it once, about 18 months ago, on my previous
bike, which was a real bone shaker. Around mile 9 on the way home I
almost lost the will to live... :) I wasn't sure whether that was (i)
because I was unused to riding a bike (majorly sore bum, for
instance), (ii) because the bike was inadequate or (iii) because the
distance was unfeasible. Sounds like it was a combination of (i) and
(ii)!

Thanks!


Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
"Peewiglet" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:16:25 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>If I were you I'd put some mudguards and a rack on it. Bikes tend to
>>come without 'guards in the UK because the market believes that people
>>want "sporty" and mudguards are not sporty. But they do stop you being
>>covered with a stream of rather unpleasant cack every time the road is
>>wet, which may be a moot point if you're a mountain biker riding through
>>rivers or a racer shaving off grammes, but for A to B riding it's /very/
>>good! SKS make some of the best ones, and 'guards with a mudflap are
>>better than ones without.

>
> Many thanks - I'll do that. I was planning some, but I didn't know
> which ones to go for.
>
>>Racks are similarly regarded as uncool and most UK riders seem to sport
>>rucksacks. More fool them, as you've got a nice strong weight bearing
>>frame and it's far, far, far more comfortable for that to take the
>>weight of any baggage. Rucksacks are better for some applications, but
>>only a few, and panniers/rack packs/bar bags etc. are simply better ways
>>to take stuff with you in most cases.

>
> This probably sounds like a really daft question, but (assuming a
> frame is the little rectangular thing behind the saddle/on top of the
> back wheel, that I had on my bike when I was a child)


That's the *baggage-carrier*. The frame is the *steel-tube-system* that
remains after you've removed every part that can be removed (wheels,
paddles, steer, chain etc).

> how does one attach things securely to the frame? Bunji cords, presumably?
> Does it
> make the bike seem unstable when cornering? Would panniers be better?
> (I'm thinking of trips to Waitrose, and maybe even camping trips with
> the tent in due course.)


Bike orientated outdoorshops and good bikeshops will have all kinds of
baggage-systems. People bike around the world taking everything they need
with them. A backpacker on wheels :)

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:08:23 +0100, "theo" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]
>>>Racks are similarly regarded as uncool and most UK riders seem to sport
>>>rucksacks. More fool them, as you've got a nice strong weight bearing
>>>frame and it's far, far, far more comfortable for that to take the
>>>weight of any baggage. Rucksacks are better for some applications, but
>>>only a few, and panniers/rack packs/bar bags etc. are simply better ways
>>>to take stuff with you in most cases.

>>
>> This probably sounds like a really daft question, but (assuming a
>> frame is the little rectangular thing behind the saddle/on top of the
>> back wheel, that I had on my bike when I was a child)

>
>That's the *baggage-carrier*. The frame is the *steel-tube-system* that
>remains after you've removed every part that can be removed (wheels,
>paddles, steer, chain etc).


Whoops - it was even dafter than I'd intended. I meant to say 'rack',
not 'frame'. I was wondering whether that was the thing that Pete was
referring to above, or whether it's something different; maybe
something that panniers are attached to.

[...]
>Bike orientated outdoorshops and good bikeshops will have all kinds of
>baggage-systems. People bike around the world taking everything they need
>with them. A backpacker on wheels :)


I like the idea of taking it camping :)



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
 
Following up to Rooney

>This has nothing to do with which is safer. The only stats posted
>suggest that on average, you are ten times more likely to be killed
>per cycle mile than per car mile. You have to be a bit circumspect
>about drawing conclusions for a particular journey, but the fact that
>the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.


I would have thought that if you did do the longer journeys by
bike, it would not reduce the 10x figure, rather increase it as
cycling on major roads is only going to be more dangerous than a
little trip down the shops.
If you did the opposite and only measured against short car
journeys I suspect few drivers are killed on typically 30 mph
trips to the shops.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>> but the fact that
>> the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.

>
>except that it isn't.


all forms of transport will be typically used in slightly
different ways, so their miles will be "different". Unless you
just give up on comparisons how do you suggest this issue is
overcome?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Peewiglet wrote:

> Whoops - it was even dafter than I'd intended. I meant to say 'rack',
> not 'frame'. I was wondering whether that was the thing that Pete was
> referring to above, or whether it's something different; maybe
> something that panniers are attached to.


"rack" is the more usual UK parlance. Frame, like Theo said, is the,
errrr, frame! Though you hang baggage on the rack, it's the frame
that's the main weight bearing structure.

Better bags attach to the rack with a variety of easy to use systems.
IMHO Ortlieb make the best ones, which lock onto the rack but you can
unlock them simply by picking them up with the carrying handle so
there's no faffing to be done. Other brands are almost as easy to use,
like Carradice and Altura. Different brands have a different mix of
pockets, waterproofing etc, just like rucksacks.

> I like the idea of taking it camping :)


See http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tourdunord.htm for a
short diary of last summer's cycle camping tour in Northern Scotland.
As well as panniers for big loads you can get a trailer like a Yak BOB,
which also turns the bike into a fairly awesome shopping machine that
can take a small trolley load of goodies without much trouble or faff.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>And if I'm doing ten times the mileage in my car, what with me using it
>for longer journeys as I do, how does that demonstrate I'm safer in a car?
>And since the average life expectancy of a cyclist is better, even
>considering the chances of a fatal accident, than a non-cyclist, and
>that longer life will have fewer chronic health problems, how does that
>demonstrate I'm better off in a car?
>
>Fact is that on my bike or in my car I stand a very good chance of
>arriving at my destination in good working order on any given journey,
>so making a big song and dance about the car being safer is a red herring.


It seems to me you can validy ignore risk as its acceptably low,
although I have lost people to a car crash and a cycling accident
in my lifetime. More to illness though.
However, if you do not wish to ignore risk and wish to know the
level, it *has* to be fatalities per distance you compare.
It is then reasonable to assess the health benefits of cycling as
a seperate calculation and add a caveat.
To say you drive 10 times the distance in your car than bike so
risk is equal, is trying to avoid the real issue of the high risk
of being knocked off a bike
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Rooney

>who are unusually dangerous
>>on anything with wheels.

>
>If you're talikng percentages rather than absolute figures, that would
>make sense. What proportion of motorists are dangerous young men? And
>what proportion of cyclists? Any stats?


I have no stats but would point to the habit of moving from cycle
to motorbike to car. That used to be the pattern, less so now, I
think.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap