W
Wilson
Guest
"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
>>>> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.
>>>
>>> Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
>>> the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
>>> actuality, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
>>> the biggest vehicles are the safest.
>> [....]
>>
>> Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
>> anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may
>> *not necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>>
>> I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides
>> with a semi truck and trailer.
>
> Me neither, but again, that's not the point I am addressing. The
> problem with accessing risk in this case, as is common, is one
> of selective observation and flawed generalization.
>
> Imagine you are in a minor car collision, wearing your seat belt.
> You are not injured, but a gasoline leak has started a fire. You
> have time to escape if you move quickly, but your seat belt is
> jammed. You die in the fire. OK, so you carry a knife to cut
> the seat belt. What if that slight delay makes the difference?
>
> Clearly in this case, wearing the seat belt was as undesirable
> as being in the Mini Cooper crushed by the semi. But it does
> not necessarily follow that *not* wearing seat belts is the safest
> behavior.
>
>> Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not necessary*
>> follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>
> Depends on whether the bottle obtains escape velocity. %^)
> That you are willing to wager on the likely outcome suggests an
> understanding of the laws of physics or at least a sound
> generalization from observation of a fairly simple circumstance
> with few variables.
>
> But when assessing relative risk of various human activities, the
> laws of physics are only part of the picture. Hmmm, this
> reminds me of the falling Coke bottle in the movie, _The Gods
> Must be Crazy_.
>
>> graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton [...]
>> According to your statistics all these cyclists were statistically less
>> safe driving to the start of the race with their bikes in tow than they
>> were on the road racing their bikes.
>
> The cyclists were exposed to greater risk while driving.
>
> Shall I send you links to news photos of the mangled
> remains of the SUV where four children of friends of
> mine died?
>
>> Then the unthinkable happened.
>
> Not unthinkable. An unlikely thing happened.
> A tragic incident.
>
> Do you propose that the cyclists involved failed to
> properly prepare for and take evasive action?
>
> Do you propose that they failed to make eye contact
> with the driver, -- drunk, asleep at the wheel,-- before
> proceeding?
>
> The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
> Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
> not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
> motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
> not a accident, it was man slaughter.
>
>> Your statistics are no respecter of persons.
>
> Correct. One-in-a-million events happen.
> Strangely, in about one in a million times over
> the long run. %^)
>
>> Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your
>> body flying though the air.
>
> Correct.
>
> No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
> swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
> pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
> and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
> camp. Both have happened here.
>
> Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
> dangerous.
>
> Jon
>
My argument doesn't concern the relative dangers of cycling compared to
other activities, such as roller derby, per hour risk of exposure, or
whatever. They are what they are.
My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist. It is
far and away more dangerous for the cyclist than for the train engineer,
car, or
the bus or simi truck drivers. My point is that it is critically important
for the cyclist to act accordingly and use their own judgment and wits to
avoid this eventuality.
Thass all I'm sayin'.
news:[email protected]...
> "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> a bicycle/motor vehicle accident on the road is
>>>> inherently unsafe for the cyclist.
>>>
>>> Ok, but by the same reasoning, a small car/big truck accident on
>>> the road is "inherently unsafe" for the small car occupants. In
>>> actuality, however, it does *not necessarily* follow from this that
>>> the biggest vehicles are the safest.
>> [....]
>>
>> Ok so it might even be true that nothing in this life necessarily follows
>> anything else. Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may
>> *not necessary* follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>>
>> I do know that I don't want to be in a Mini Cooper that collides
>> with a semi truck and trailer.
>
> Me neither, but again, that's not the point I am addressing. The
> problem with accessing risk in this case, as is common, is one
> of selective observation and flawed generalization.
>
> Imagine you are in a minor car collision, wearing your seat belt.
> You are not injured, but a gasoline leak has started a fire. You
> have time to escape if you move quickly, but your seat belt is
> jammed. You die in the fire. OK, so you carry a knife to cut
> the seat belt. What if that slight delay makes the difference?
>
> Clearly in this case, wearing the seat belt was as undesirable
> as being in the Mini Cooper crushed by the semi. But it does
> not necessarily follow that *not* wearing seat belts is the safest
> behavior.
>
>> Throw a coke bottle up in the air and I suppose it may *not necessary*
>> follow that it will return to earth, but I'm willing to
>> bet it will.
>
> Depends on whether the bottle obtains escape velocity. %^)
> That you are willing to wager on the likely outcome suggests an
> understanding of the laws of physics or at least a sound
> generalization from observation of a fairly simple circumstance
> with few variables.
>
> But when assessing relative risk of various human activities, the
> laws of physics are only part of the picture. Hmmm, this
> reminds me of the falling Coke bottle in the movie, _The Gods
> Must be Crazy_.
>
>> graphic photo of car plowing into a peloton [...]
>> According to your statistics all these cyclists were statistically less
>> safe driving to the start of the race with their bikes in tow than they
>> were on the road racing their bikes.
>
> The cyclists were exposed to greater risk while driving.
>
> Shall I send you links to news photos of the mangled
> remains of the SUV where four children of friends of
> mine died?
>
>> Then the unthinkable happened.
>
> Not unthinkable. An unlikely thing happened.
> A tragic incident.
>
> Do you propose that the cyclists involved failed to
> properly prepare for and take evasive action?
>
> Do you propose that they failed to make eye contact
> with the driver, -- drunk, asleep at the wheel,-- before
> proceeding?
>
> The inherently unsafe aspect here is the drunk driver.
> Sadly, that's not a very rare occurrence. This was
> not about the physics of smaller or larger bodies in
> motion colliding. If the reports are true, this was
> not a accident, it was man slaughter.
>
>> Your statistics are no respecter of persons.
>
> Correct. One-in-a-million events happen.
> Strangely, in about one in a million times over
> the long run. %^)
>
>> Statistics to the contrary don't matter when it's your
>> body flying though the air.
>
> Correct.
>
> No more than statistics matter if the drunk driver had
> swerved onto the sidewalk and into a crowd of
> pedestrians. Or had crossed into oncoming traffic
> and struck head-on a van full of kids going to church
> camp. Both have happened here.
>
> Doesn't change the point that cycling is not particularly
> dangerous.
>
> Jon
>
My argument doesn't concern the relative dangers of cycling compared to
other activities, such as roller derby, per hour risk of exposure, or
whatever. They are what they are.
My argument, which is backed up by my common sense, is that a cyclist
getting run over by a car, train, bus, or semi trailer is involved in an
event that is inherently dangerous, and often fatal, to the cyclist. It is
far and away more dangerous for the cyclist than for the train engineer,
car, or
the bus or simi truck drivers. My point is that it is critically important
for the cyclist to act accordingly and use their own judgment and wits to
avoid this eventuality.
Thass all I'm sayin'.
