Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

I didn't say I thought it was subjective.

Ok, I'm heaving the kitten off. Just one example. Landslide, above, quotes the author's opposition of the relative threats of 'terrorism' and 'bicycles'. You respond by glossing the point as 'cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism'. Good for you: when you read it, you understood that the author meant, there, for bicycles to be a metonym for cycling accidents. But that isn't what he or she actually said. Bicycles don't cause death. They are not a metonym for cycling accidents – they are a metonym for cycling. It's a category mistake.

The article is littered with similar elisions and sloppinesses. Why? Either it is just bad writing, or there is some disingenuous sleight of hand going on to sensationalise or over-simplify the source material. I plumped for the former, given that I haven't read the original article.

[quote]Originally Posted by Landslide
To frame these findings in sweeping statements such as [I]“But if you asked which killed more people ion [sic] the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles," does not necessarily discredit the research and resultant paper, but it certainly shows the newspaper article to be poorly written and worthy of criticism.[/I]

 While I would agree the article is not an in depth digestion of the original paper, I would say it conveys the general theme fairly well.

The point about cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism is simple a fact and entirely relevant to the study.[/quote]

The higher than expected number of casualties is attributed to a change in peoples' behaviour. What caused that change? Whilst it may have been a number of factors, the article and the research paper both attribute the change to terrorism. Whether the casualties are a primary or secondary effect of the initial terrorist act, we still need to consider the root cause.

I agree with you here (as does the Telegraph and the original study).

"7/7 London bombings may have resulted in '*second wave*' of casualties on the roads"

The study just seems to be stating the bleeding obvious; if more people cycle then more of them will be killed (at least initially as it could be expected eventually an increase in the number of cyclists will lead to a 'cultural change' and better awareness by drivers of cyclists etc etc). So by the same measure warm, dry weather will have a similar effect. That an increase in cycling fatalities may be the result of a fear of another way of dying maybe adds some piquancy or 'irony' but it's still hardly a revelation.

I didn't say I thought it was subjective.

Plurabelle: "Well, I suppose you could argue that criticising it for being badly-written is subjective rather than rational."

Landslide, above, quotes the author's opposition of the relative threats of 'terrorism' and 'bicycles'. You respond by glossing the point as 'cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism'.

It is a demonstrable fact.

Good for you: when you read it, you understood that the author meant, there, for bicycles to be a metonym for cycling accidents. But that isn't what he or she actually said. Bicycles don't cause death. They are not a metonym for cycling accidents – they are a metonym for cycling. It's a category mistake.

It is not a category mistake, I think the overwhelming majority of people reading the article will not think someone is trying to suggest bicycles 'themselves' are somehow causing deaths - most sane people will understand the language.

The article is littered with similar elisions and sloppinesses.

Point them out, make your case.

The study just seems to be stating the bleeding obvious; if more people cycle then more of them will be killed.

Yep !

That is what it is saying - but it is put in the context of people's (erroneous) perception of risk.

The article implicitly attributes 214 additional road casualties to the 7/7 attacks. The article only mentions one alternative form of transport prior to this, its one and only statistic.

Strikes me as lazy at best, deliberately misleading at worst. Anyone dissecting the study is likely to be very much in the minority of the readership.

I think this is what I think.

Plurabelle: "Well, I suppose you could argue that criticising it for being badly-written is subjective rather than rational."

It is a demonstrable fact.

It is not a category mistake, I think the overwhelming majority of people reading the article will not think someone is trying to suggest bicycles 'themselves' are somehow causing deaths - most sane people will understand the language.

Point them out, make your case.

Oh God, the multi-quote.

RE subjectivity: yes, well, quite. Just what I said. You could argue it. And I wouldn't agree with you.

I pointed out one. That's enough :-) Good writing should be clear, concise, and accurate. It is indeed a mistake because it is inaccurate – he doesn't mean 'bicycles'. The sentence therefore requires the reader to have some mental agility to sort out what he means as opposed to what he says. You can have recourse to the 'most sane people would understand' defense if you please, although it seems like a bit of a guess – how do you know? What is 'sanity', for the purpose of this discussion? What locks did you use and how did you lock it? Should writing not cater from a range of comprehension levels? & tedious cetera – but it hardly makes the case for the writing doing what it is supposed to do: communicate simple information.

Do you honestly think the writing's good? If you don't, why is it not valid for people to point out that it might be a wee bit lacking?

The article implicitly attributes 214 additional road casualties to the 7/7 attacks. The article only mentions one alternative form of transport prior to this, its one and only statistic.

There are good reasons, in the three studies looking at how the terrorist attacks impacted on transport (NewYork, Madrid, London) - all locations had markedly different reactions (due to clearly explained cultural/infrastructural reasons) - in the case of London (unlike, for example, New York) there was no meaningful increase in car use.

It's a shiteola article, and a bollocks study, both written by cunts who are all about fuck all.
It's BS and I wouldn't roll it up and kill a commuter on a train with it if it was the last newspaper-cum-weapon to hand.

It is indeed a mistake because it is inaccurate – he doesn't mean 'bicycles'. The sentence therefore requires the reader to have some mental agility to sort out what he means as opposed to what he says.

You have to be fucking joking !? :)

What level of stupidity must you project onto the readership to suppose that they lack the 'mental agility' to work out that the bicycles are not killing people but . . . bicycle accidents.

Really, this is a silly point. When I read that there were 3,000 car related deaths in a certain period / area - I would not usually presume the cars had somehow got hold of guns and gone on a shooting spree - you should really credit people with some basic understanding of common parlance.

Do you honestly think the writing's good?

Yeah, it's fine, the message of the study comes over clearly.

There are good reasons, in the three studies looking at how the terrorist attacks impacted on transport (NewYork, Madrid, London) - all locations had markedly different reactions (due to clearly explained cultural/infrastructural reasons) - in the case of London (unlike, for example, New York) there was no meaningful increase in car use.

Obviously differing patterns of usage are going to result in different fatality rates. I dont think that's in question. The methodology of the study could well be best practice - whatever. I object to the scaremongering by the author of the article:

"the 7/7 attacks could have resulted in a second wave of casualties on the roads as people switched from the tube to traveling by bicycle" closely followed by "214 extra casualties in the capital in the six months after the bombing".

Sounds like bike carnage.

I object to the scaremongering by the author of the artice.

Which parts do you think are scaremongering - and how would you have conveyed them - or would you have simply kept some information out of the media ?

You have to be fucking joking !? :)

What level of stupidity must you project onto the readership to suppose that they lack the 'mental agility' to work out that the bicycles are not killing people but . . . bicycle accidents.

Really, this is a silly point. When I read that there were 3,000 car related deaths in a certain period / area - I would not usually presume the cars had somehow got hold of guns and gone on a shooting spree - you should really credit people with some basic understanding of common parlance.

But it's really not that simple. That small evasion has consequences. Accidents on bicycles in and of themselves, ie falling off one, or crashing at low speeds, don't tend to kill people; collisions between bicycles and fast-moving traffic or HGVs do. Do you, knowing that, say with a straight face that 'bicycles kill people'? Thus concretising the image of cycling that is already in general circulation, that of it as an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself (rather than one that is dangerous in conjunction with certain other factors)?

That is what I mean by sleight of hand – small inaccuracies and elisions can have a irresponsible rhetorical effect. Language matters.

If my headline made specific reference to "people switched from the tube to traveling by bicycle", I'd use a statistic relating to that point. 214 casualties lacks context... but hey, its a big number.

You could make a statement similar to it with quite a few things.

1. Smoking more dangerous than terrorism.
   
2. Cars more dangerous than terrorism.
   
3. World War 2 more dangerous than terrorism.
   
   

And (I think) they are all true, but as balki pointed out lack any real conection to one another.

50% of bikes I build myself did it to me!

^

By the headline's logic ...

Working as a bike mechanic is akin to George W. Bush being a medic in Al-queda training camp.

Better watch out.

Hmmm.... I've fucked up here. He was referencing cycling casualties.

If my headline made specific reference to "people switched from the tube to traveling by bicycle", I'd use a statistic relating to that point. 214 casualties lacks context... but hey, its a big number.

The 214 additional (extra) casualties are unambiguously put in context.

On the lighter note, the fact that so many people switched on to cycling affected prosperity of tube pickpockets and the welfare of their families.

Accidents on bicycles in and of themselves, ie falling off one, or crashing at low speeds, don't tend to kill people; collisions between bicycles and fast-moving traffic or HGVs do.

This is quite some revelation, I will take it on board.

but as a consequence of "switching", how many people were saved from death by boredom and body odour on London's famous Tube?

i see Tubengers staggering, gasping, out of those death tunnels every morning. Thousands die every year, but it's covered up by the authorities. They use the decomposing bodies to grow mind-control mushrooms and put them in the water supply.

On a serious note did they bother actually doing some time/frequency graph with a moving average .. because that would be far more accurate.

I don't object to the paper at all. These guys have got to make a living somehow, and I'm enough of a stats nerd myself to warm to the thought of getting hold of some data and running a bunch of regression analyses and seeing what comes out the other end. Shame on Bill for admitting to not reading it because he didn't like what he took to be its conclusions - next stop, book-burning, perhaps.

I agree with Plurabelle that the Telegraph article is sloppy. It's riddled with typos, the kind that make you sound like a moron if you read it out loud (try it). And those quotes from the professor look odd out of context.

If the article had been in the Guardian, I wouldn't have a problem with it, apart from that. However, the fact that it was in the Telegraph suggests to me that the out of context quotes were an intentional ruse to feed the prejudices of thousands of Tory petrolheads.

On a serious note did they bother actually doing some time/frequency graph with a moving average .. because that would be far more accurate.

Yes, of course.