You are reading a single comment by @s.walrus and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@s.walrus
I think what this demonstrates is not the cycling is dangerous, but that, unless you are very, very unlucky, terrorists actually aren't. There are few things that /can/ be fatal that have killed less people than international terrorists in London. Being killed (or badly injured) by a terrorist is extremely unlikely and statistically completely insignificant (apologies to anyone unlucky enough to have been injured, or lost love one/friends).
The original articles concept is little more than a copy of the prologue of Dan Gardner's 2008 book Risk, where he demonstrates that more people were killed by the increase in road travel after the 9/11 attacks, than died in the attacks. He does this not to show that the cars are bad (mmmm'k) but to show how peoples perception of risk is skewed. I think this was Prof. Ayton's aim too, but Kate Devlin decided to make it a little more sensationalist. (Yes, I read the paper).
All this article demonstrates is what an over-blown pile of poo the War On Terror is.
(Deaths due to terrorism in last 10 years < 60, natural deaths of young healthy people for no particular reason (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) > 6000)