-
"cycling has been a greater hazard than terrorism and is responsible for far more deaths."
From the author of the study.
Yes, and this is demonstrably true, no controversy there.
Charlie Lloyd's point:
"What he doesn’t say is that almost all these people were killed by motor vehicles, and that motor vehicles killed about 12 times as many ‘non cyclists’. There is no arithmetical or moral compass to his remarks."
I agree with Charlie.
This really is such a poor argument,the best anyone seems to have come up with to refute the article is the idea that the readership simply lack to intelligence to work out that 'cycling' - in the context of casualties - is widely accepted common parlance for cyclists killed (or injured) on the roads - rather than bicycles attacking people then perhaps gouging them with their handlebars before wheeling off to the secret feral bicycle hideout in some woodlands somewhere.
The study is clear - he is not talking about bicycles high on crack stabbing people but (verbatim - rather than selective paraphrasing) " . . . bicyclist road casualties . . . "
The silly hyperbolic "no arithmetical or moral compass" comment seems to be based on the "Hey, xxxx is worse than yyyy" school of reasoning. . . .
Do 'motor vehicles [kill] about 12 times as many ‘non cyclists’ [as they do cyclists] ?
Yes (I have not checked the figures but take the general point being made).
Was the study about how many non cyclists are killed by motor vehicles ?
No. It was about people's perception of risk and how this likely lead to the measured increase in bicyclist road casualties in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London.
-
This really is such a poor argument,the best anyone seems to have come up with to refute the article is the idea that the readership simply lack to intelligence to work out that 'cycling' - in the context of casualties - is widely accepted common parlance for cyclists killed (or injured) on the roads - rather than bicycles attacking people then perhaps gouging them with their handlebars before wheeling off to the secret feral bicycle hideout in some woodlands somewhere.
tsk
-
Cycling . . . is responsible for far more deaths [than terrorism]? Aren't you confusing correlation with causation?
How so ?
To be precise, in the UK there have been more cyclist road casualties over the past decade than those killed or injured in acts of terrorism during the same period.
-
This really is such a poor argument,the best anyone seems to have come up with to refute the article is the idea that the readership simply lack to intelligence to work out that 'cycling' - in the context of casualties - is widely accepted common parlance for cyclists killed (or injured) on the roads - rather than bicycles attacking people then perhaps gouging them with their handlebars before wheeling off to the secret feral bicycle hideout in some woodlands somewhere.
There is also my argument, which I am starting to like more and more, that his assessment of the relative risk of cycling versus taking the tube, based on deaths per billion trips, doesn't take into account deaths on the tube arising as a consequence of the 7/7 attacks, and may also be based on a massive under-estimation of the number of cycle trips actually made.
-
. . . Conversely, while there has been an absolute increase in the number of deaths associated with cycling, there has been a relative decline in relation to number of cyclists (or cycle journeys). You could derive from this that cycling is actually causing fewer deaths.
"there has been a relative decline in relation to number of cyclists"
Where have you got these figures from ? I would like to look at them.
-
There is also my argument, which I am starting to like more and more, that his assessment of the relative risk of cycling versus taking the tube, based on deaths per billion trips, doesn't take into account deaths on the tube arising as a consequence of the 7/7 attacks
Even with the deaths (56) directly attributed to the 7/7 attacks added to public transport's DeathTotal™ - cyclist road deaths are still almost 300% that figure.
But I would agree with your general point that these should be included in his figures.
-
i thought hippy had taken up polo
polo is generally the reason that people become less active on here
though murtle is in spain and just started posting - is hippy there too?
was murtles marriage actually a civil partnership with hippy?
-
back to the OP
what the article fails to do is make clear that its actually about peoples misapprehension of risk
that more people die whilst cycling than as a result of terrorist action is clearly true
however more of the public will be concerned about themselves being killed in an act of terrorism than in a cycling accident
to compare these simplistic numbers is an oversight as they do not actually convey any sense of the relative risk - however there is no method to actually quantify the risk
the paper pertaining to relative risk has then been used as the basis for a lazy article stating that bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism
clearly there is an error here in the simplistic comparison, bicycles are an object, terrorism is a social movement
if you compared the numbers of people killed per bike and then the numbers of people killed per terrorist activity you would have a very different headline!
-
i thought hippy had taken up polo
polo is generally the reason that people become less active on here
though murtle is in spain and just started posting - is hippy there too?
was murtles marriage actually a civil partnership with hippy?
Polo?
Fuck off.
Murtle sent me a photo of a beer while I was at work, sober. I've had him killed.
-
But the headline and tone of the article does not really represent this. Instead it focuses itself on nonsense comparisons.
-
But the headline and tone of the article does not really represent this. Instead it focuses itself on nonsense comparisons.
I disagree (I think that should be obvious by now) . . . the headline (and subhead) is pretty explicit:
**"7/7 London bombings may have resulted in 'second wave' of casualties on the roads
**The 7/7 London bombings may have resulted in a “second wave” of casualties on the roads as people switched from the tube to travelling by bicycle, psychiatrists believe"I invite you to point out the 'nonsense comparisons'.
-
No figures. Second hand information only, from the LCC, among others.
The CTC have recently done an analysis:
-
back to the OP
what the article fails to do is make clear that its actually about peoples misapprehension of risk
that more people die whilst cycling than as a result of terrorist action is clearly true
however more of the public will be concerned about themselves being killed in an act of terrorism than in a cycling accident
to compare these simplistic numbers is an oversight as they do not actually convey any sense of the relative risk - however there is no method to actually quantify the risk
the paper pertaining to relative risk has then been used as the basis for a lazy article stating that bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism
clearly there is an error here in the simplistic comparison, bicycles are an object, terrorism is a social movement
if you compared the numbers of people killed per bike and then the numbers of people killed per terrorist activity you would have a very different headline!
well said james
Exactly the article here is to blame the guy who wrote the paper is purely looking at peoples perception of risk. The journalist just skewed his argument into a story about cycling v's terrorism
tynan
CYOA
Sharkstar
EEI
hippy
deleted
dancing james
Oliver Schick
C.B.
lynx-
Post a reply
About
Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?
Posted by
@A_EF
I don't think he would get much aggro from digruntled drivers.