Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

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 ?

I think how it says "bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism" when they could have said "you are more likely to die of a cycling accident than from a terrorist attack", which is less catchy, of course.

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

More accurate than multiple linear regressions?

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.

Yes, that's a reasonable leap to make. Perhaps.

I think how it says "bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism" when they could have said "you are more likely to die of a cycling accident than from a terrorist attack", which is less catchy, of course.

Nowhere in the article does anyone say "bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism".

When I asked for examples of scaremongering I was looking for things from the actual article, rather than paraphrasing or making things up.

Yes, that's a reasonable leap to make. Perhaps.

I bet you'll think twice before lending him a book he might not like.

Or a cross, God knows he'd be quick enough to have it in flames. Perhaps.

tynan, you need some love spells: http://shop.ebay.com/energy_by_teresa/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=

tynan, you need some love spells: http://shop.ebay.com/energy_by_teresa/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=

Fuck ! $12.99 !!

I get mine for $1.99 (including shipping).

i roll my own. well, actually it's more like using an eye-dropper in her drink while she's not looking.

"Is cycling more dangerous than date rape?"

I'll leave that one to the statisticians.

More accurate than multiple linear regressions?

I dunno tbh, it been a while since I have practiced that, over 5 years and tbh I don't really know.

Most of my expertise with Maths related stuff is Engineering Maths.

Nowhere in the article does anyone say "bicycles are more dangerous than terrorism".

When I asked for examples of scaremongering I was looking for things from the actual article, rather than paraphrasing or making things up.

"cycling has been a greater hazard than terrorism and is responsible for far more deaths."

From the author of the study.

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.

"Is cycling more dangerous than date rape?"

I'll leave that one to the statisticians.

My bicycle has never got me pregnant, not have I had to go to counceling for it's behavior towards me...

..So no.

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 think that's a little unfair, considering I took the trouble to email the guy, and also upload the pdf so that other people could read the thing and make up their own minds.

"cycling has been a greater hazard than terrorism and is responsible for far more deaths."

From the author of the study.

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.

Have a read of the paper, Bill. It might give you a more direct line of attack, such as this:

The author's claims about the relative 'safety' of the tube compared with cycling don't count the 52 fatalities from the terrorist attacks in the figure he gives for deaths per billion trips. If he had, cycling and tubing would be more closely on par in terms of safety. He counts the terror attacks as a 'one-off' that could happen anywhere, and there is some merit in that, though it is worthy of scrutiny - you could argue that passenger transport systems are intrinsically high probability targets for terrorists.

Statistics need to be treated with caution in cases like this. Before the Concorde crash, it had the best safety record of any aircraft type. After the crash, it had one of the worst. I don't remember anyone arguing that that tragic crash was a 'one-off'.

The other point of attack might be some of the base figures he uses. He claims 18,000 people cycle into London every day - I thought it was much higher than that, even in 2005. If that's the case, his calculations about deaths per billion trips will be out again.

I think that's a little unfair, considering I took the trouble to email the guy, and also upload the pdf so that other people could read the thing and make up their own minds.

It's only because I admire and applaud so much of what you do promoting cycling that I made that remark: if it upset or offended you, I'm sorry. My point is that professor whatsisname isn't going to be disturbed that a bunch of cyclists don't like his conclusions if they say they can't be bothered to read his paper.

Shouldn't an increase in cycling journeys due to terror attacks be beneficial for cycling safety due to "safety in numbers"?

Ah well. If we're all to put such store in The Telegraph's stories, it would appear we can all ride easy.

There's a bigger menace out there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6153518/Crumbs-half-of-Britons-injured-by-their-buscuits-on-coffee-break-survey-reveals.html

the original study is mearly looking at the interesting effect of terrorism that people will do something which is significantly more dangerous, even though they know it is more dangerous because they are scared of terrorism i dont think the guy is trying to say people shouldnt cycle cause its more dangerous than terrorism he is just using cycling as a convenient example. This article however is as people have said trying to get a reaction out of people by being a little bit ambigous as to waht the study was really about. so the article writer is t blame not the prof

"More ice-creams sold since less people use the tube. Experts say it's because pedestrians are more likely to walk by an ice-cream van and think "mmm ice-cream" than someone on the tube"

Publish that and before you know it someone will make the connection to increased obesity levels and the strain it will put on the NHS. Couple that with more articles under the supervision of an editor that doesn't want to alienate the last substantial advertising revenue they seem to have left in print media, car adverts, and before you know it everyone is absorbing flawed and skewed "information" as they dribble cornflakes down their chin in the morning, scanning "newspapers" through bleary eyes. Oh look and here's an article that mentions cyclists and terrorism. "Cyclists... terrorism... cyclists... terrorism. Remember to store that away in the subconcious now brain and keep the association between the two".

Half an hour later they can leave the house and jump in their 4x4 safe in the knowledge that the media has just reinforced their belief that they have chosen the correct mode of transport. 2 hours of sitting on Battersea Bridge later and the frustration levels are just about perfect for not putting up with any crap from those evil cyclists. Why should they give them room on the road when they know from the "information" they recieve through the media that cyclists are bad. Bad as in really bad, or bad by association. Either way it's all negative.

It wouldn't be so bad if there was an upside to the knowledge and information this sort of thing spreads, but there doesn't seem to be.

To be honest, the guardian is not much better lately. Remember two pieces going like "X causes cancer" and then you read the article and it sais "X has a lot of calories, which can lead to obesity, which then can increase the risk of cancer" ...

... and what you should also know is that 'cycling is dangerous'-type articles come along with some regularity. There are the perennial favourites, like 'cycling reduces male fertility' (that one comes up about every three years), but also more novel ones than this one.

To be honest, I tired of reading them years ago, as they almost invariably understate or ignore the benefit of cycling. All that showing that cycling is 'more dangerous than terrorism' would show is that terrorism isn't actually very dangerous, but of course they are incomparable phenomena, anyway.

You can try and force just about anything onto a single scale, but if you try to do it with an ordinary everyday activity which is not very risky at all and enjoyed by billions, and an activity carried out by very few people that is rarely manifested (at least over here--it's a different story in countries that are at war, like Afghanistan), although it creates momentary extreme danger when it is, then you're just on a hiding to nothing. It may sound sensationalist but it's really not very important.

I can understand Bill in not having read the paper, and I probably would have done the same had I got that reply back from the author of the study. Studies like this in my experience are really a case of 'seen one, seen them all'. I might give it a quick look tomorrow to see if his baseline figures really are so off. The 'official' figure is currently 545,000 cycle trips a day across the Inner Cordon counting line. It's probably higher now, but I haven't seen the latest stats yet.

Well, I think this is not the right comparison anyway. He compares people that get killed by terrorists to cyclists killed. That is just not the right thing. If anything he should compare the mortality rates of people that die being killed by a bike to people that get killed by terrorists, or he should compare people that do cycling to people do terrorism.

And I don't know about you folks, but I have the suspicion that the mortality rate of suicide bombers that carry out attacks is slightly higher than the ones of cyclists per made journey.

...

sorry, that was lame, I know.

i've seen the way some of you lot ride
and i'm not bloody suprised