Risk assymmetry

Tony Raven said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as
dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)

I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

Response to Tony Raven:

Quoted message said:

It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment.

A couple of days after the first round of bombings I was at a barbecue
with my GF's family: her father was going down to London for the day, and
was told In No Uncertain Terms by his wife and daughters that he was not
to travel by tube, or by bus: he had to take taxis everywhere. I found
myself wondering [privately ;-)] what the relative risks per mile were;
but held my peace.

You've probably already seen John Adams' piece quoted at
http://www.velorution.biz/?p=943

, the full article appearing at

http://the-commons.blogspot.com/

--
Mark, UK

"The Internet was a better place when you had to TRY to get on it."

"barry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as
dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)

I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

If only that were so.
I've been driving and cycling for many years and with the best will in the
world and using defensive methods and finally using skilled avoidance
procedures I still got struck by a motor vehicle in an otherwise benign
setting. Short of not cycling at all I doubt I could have exercised more
control.
I'm not put off by the experience nor nervous from it but am more wary.

OTOH when cycling off-road I can & do take risks that are my decision and
have been hurt plenty of times, sometimes the thought of what could happen
if I loose it is worrying but it's still my decision how close to that edge
I ride.
On public roads there is plenty going on that is out of my control.

I do accept that until you've had an incident you may feel as if you have
control. The same can be said for driving, you can regularly drive at high
speed "in control" with minimum seperation but one day some twunt who loses
control can re-arrange your perception of "being in control".

--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/P

barry said:

I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

You cannot control the actions of other road users as has been shown
here many times. Australian Womens Cycling team is the most recent
example. By cycling correctly you can reduce the risk but the
remaining risk is totally in the control of other people.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one.

Are some cycling, though, to remain independent of PT that goes into
disarray when there is an incident as much as perceived risk avoidance?
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/P

barry said:

I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You can't
really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you cycle and
how dangerous or safe it is.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.

[1] Think Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for example.

--
jc

Jeremy Collins said:

barry said:

I think there's the issue that people like to be in control. You
can't really control a bomb on a tube, but you can control how you
cycle and how dangerous or safe it is.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.

Except you are not regaining control, just maybe a false perception of
control. But in either case we come back to neither is uniquely dangerous.

Quoted message said:

[1] Think Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for example.

If you knew your history you would know that those were chosen because
of their military, not civilian, value.

Truman wrote in his diary "This weapon is to be used against Japan
between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson,
to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the
target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages,
ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the
common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the
new."

The targets were the shipyards in Nagasaki and Army in Hiroshima. The
fact that the military targets were intertwined with civilians made
civilians unavoidable but they were not the target.

I have spent many sad hours on a number of occassions in the A-bomb
museums of both cities and specifically took my children there last year
to see and learn. These days they are just a 5 minute footnote in the
history lessons and we are forgetting the awful power of such weapons
which worries me.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed
as a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the
much lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing.

I knowingly take a higher risk cycling everywhere rather than, say, taking
the bus because:
a) The risks of either are so small as to be irrelevent to me.
b) Any risk in cycling is offset by it being fun. I'm more likely to
indulge in 'risky' behaviour if it's fun, and less likely to tolerate an
increase in risk if the activity is boring.

I am slightly offended by the "we are all worrying about ... getting caught
in a terrorist bombing." I'm not fussed in the slightest, and only brought
the original threat up in case people got caught in PT foul ups. Heh,
worrying how I was more concerned about delays to peoples' journeys rather
than the end of peoples' lives. Does this mean I've a good appreciation of
relative risk, or am I just a heartless [censored]? :-)

Mark Thompson said:

Does this mean I've a good appreciation of
relative risk, or am I just a heartless [censored]? :-)

Hearless [censored] definitely ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing. It was John Adams
who pointed out that all the Londoners abandoning the Tube and buses in
favour of cycling were putting themselves at much greater risk, albeit
still a minutely tiny one. Yet many people, including some here I
suspect, are genuinely scared and nervous of travelling on the Tube at
the moment. Its a funny thing risk perception but perhaps as a result
we should be more understanding of those that perceive cycling as
dangerous.

OK, OK, I'll shut up now ;-)

My thread yesterday was tongue in cheek, or taking the p**s. My response the
day before was more honest. I really don't feel that the odds of me getting
caught up in it are that high. Otherwise I'm off out to buy a lottery
ticket.

Mark McNeill said:

A couple of days after the first round of bombings I was at a barbecue
with my GF's family: her father was going down to London for the day,
and was told In No Uncertain Terms by his wife and daughters that he
was not to travel by tube, or by bus: he had to take taxis
everywhere. I found myself wondering [privately ;-)] what the
relative risks per mile were; but held my peace.

On the (thankfully rare) occasions I have to go to London, I always take
Taxis everywhere (or walk). If you can get the driver to shut up about
politics, the weather, who he's had in the back etc, it's the only way to
make the trip relatively tolerable.

Pete.

I submit that on or about Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:45:42 +0100, the person
known to the court as Tony Raven <[email hidden]> made a
statement (<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the much
lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing.

For some values of all. My (occasional) travel in London has not
changed at all: I still take the Brompton Express from Paddingtown to
St Mary Axe.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Tony Raven said:

With all these bombings and checkings in I was just musing at our own
risk assymmetry. We take offence at cycling being seen and portrayed
as
a uniquely dangerous activity and yet we are all worrying about the
much lower risk of getting caught in a terrorist bombing.

We don't know what the risk is because these particular attackers and
suicide bombing is something new for London. We don't know how much it
will escalate and what else they might resort to.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

We don't know what the risk is because these particular attackers and
suicide bombing is something new for London. We don't know how much it
will escalate and what else they might resort to.

Well, if it gets as bad as Israel the risk will be about 20% of that of
being killed in a road accident. You would need six 7/7's a year in
London to match the risk of being killed on the roads in London. So it
will have to escalate a long long way to get as bad as other everyday
risks of living in London. YMMV

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete Biggs said:

We don't know what the risk is because these particular attackers and
suicide bombing is something new for London. We don't know how much it
will escalate and what else they might resort to.

Well, if it gets as bad as Israel the risk will be about 20% of that of
being killed in a road accident. You would need six 7/7's a year in
London to match the risk of being killed on the roads in London. So it
will have to escalate a long long way to get as bad as other everyday
risks of living in London. YMMV

Which would still leave it a darn sight safer than driving in Portugal,
amongst other places, yet it doesn't seem to overconcern British tourists
whom I expect consider it a very safe destination.
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/P

Peter B said:

Are some cycling, though, to remain independent of PT that goes into
disarray when there is an incident as much as perceived risk avoidance?

I'm commuting on skates to remain independent of PT that goes into
disarray. The other day, feeling lazy, I decided to take the bus
instead: it took five minutes to cover three hundred yards, after
which time I got off and skated the rest of the way, reaching the
office before it was even /timetabled/ to arrive.

I doubt there are enough inline skaters on the roads for any
meaningful statistics on its safety to be available, but I imagine it
involves roughly similar risks to cycling. It may be more dangerous
outside London where nobody else is doing it and so road users are
completely not expecting it.

-dan

Tony Raven said:

Jeremy Collins said:

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.

Except you are not regaining control, just maybe a false perception of
control. But in either case we come back to neither is uniquely dangerous.

I don't think that the perception of control is false. On a bike you can
quite easily set your own position along the curve of perceived risk to
perceived payoff through, well, your own actions. On a tube train or a
bus, you can't do that at all, and any extra perceived loss of safety is
going to be uncomfortable without that extra degree of freedom.

Whether any the increased sense of safety is justifiable though is
another matter.

BTW: at this point I realise I'm probably using the wrong terms left
right and centre, and that I need to read that John Adams book. Anyone's
local library have a copy so that I can arrange an ILL?

--
Andrew Chadwick

Tony Raven said:

Pete Biggs said:

We don't know what the risk is because these particular attackers and
suicide bombing is something new for London. We don't know how much
it will escalate and what else they might resort to.

Well, if it gets as bad as Israel the risk will be about 20% of that
of being killed in a road accident. You would need six 7/7's a year
in London to match the risk of being killed on the roads in London.
So it will have to escalate a long long way to get as bad as other
everyday risks of living in London. YMMV

A handful of cyclists die on London's roads. Chemical weapons could kill
thousands. I have a feeling it won't come to that but who knows? No one
does. I think the public's fear can be excused at least until the
situation settles down and we have a better idea of what is going on.

~PB

Andrew Chadwick said:

Tony Raven said:

Jeremy Collins said:

Striking a civilian target to cause fear and confusion is pretty much
the defintion of terrorism[1], and regaining control is a natural response.

Except you are not regaining control, just maybe a false perception of
control. But in either case we come back to neither is uniquely dangerous.

Quoted message said:

BTW: at this point I realise I'm probably using the wrong terms left
right and centre, and that I need to read that John Adams book. Anyone's
local library have a copy so that I can arrange an ILL?

Try UK Public Libraries on the Web:-
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ac940/weblibs.html

Try COPAC for academic libraries stock. They lend to public libraries,
often (more fool they):-
http://copac.ac.uk/wzgw?f=f&form=A%2FT&id=3082153