Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CarFree] Cycling is Safe(r)

Expand Messages
  • De Clarke
    ... I share your curiosity. Wish there was a URL for the source of the figures. On a (much) lighter note, and to keep a sense of perspective ... Bill Bryson,
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >> This would imply that there are only 5 times more car
      >> participants than bike participants. It would seem that
      >> their choice of how a participant of cycling is defined is
      >> rather liberal.

      I share your curiosity. Wish there was a URL for the
      source of the figures.

      On a (much) lighter note, and to keep a sense of perspective
      on the ballyhooed "dangers" of cycling or walking in America:


      Bill Bryson, _I'm a Stranger Here Myself_
      "Well, Doctor, I was just trying to lie down..."

      Here's a fact for you. According to the latest _Statistical
      Abstract of the United States_, every year more than 400,000
      Americans suffer injuries involving beds, mattresses, or
      pillows. Think about that for a minute. That is almost
      2,000 bed, mattress, or pillow injuries a day. In the time
      it takes you to read this article, four of my fellow citizens
      will somehow manage to be wounded by their bedding.

      My point in raising this is not to suggest that we are
      somehow more inept than the rest of the world when it comes
      to lying down for the night (though clearly there are thousands
      of us who could do with additional practice), but rather to
      observe that there is scarcely a statistic to do with this
      vast and scattered nation that doesn't in some way give one

      I had this brought bome to me the other day when I was in the
      local library looking up something else altogether in the
      aforesaid _Abstract_ and happened across "Table No. 206: Injuries
      Associated with Consumer Products." I have seldom passed a
      more diverting half hour.

      Consider this intriguing fact: Almost 50,000 people in the
      United States are injured each year by pencils, pens and
      other desk accessories. How _do_ they do it? I have spent
      many hours seated at desks where I would have greeted almost
      any kind of injury as a welcome diversion, but never once
      have I come close to achieving actual bodily harm.

      So I ask again: How _do_ they do it? These are, bear in mind,
      injuries severe enough to warrant a trip to an emergency room.
      Putting a staple in the tip of your index finger (which I have
      done quite a lot, sometimes only semi-accidentally) doesn't
      count. I am looking around my desk now and unless I put my
      head in the laser printer or stab myself with the scissors
      I cannot see a single source of potential harm within ten feet.

      But that's the thing about household injuries if Table No. 206
      is any guide -- they can come at you from almost anywhere.
      Consider this one. In 1992 (the latest year for which figures
      are available) more than 400,000 people in the United States
      were injured by chairs, sofas, and sofa beds. What are we to
      make of this? Does it tell us something trenchant about the
      design of modern furniture or merely that we have become
      exceptionally careless sitters? What is certain is that the
      problem is worsening. The number of chair, sofa, and sofa bed
      injuries showed an increase of 30,000 over the previous year,
      which is quite a worrying trend even for those of us who are
      frankly fearless with regard to soft furnishings. (That may of
      course be the nub of the problem -- overconfidence).

      Predictably, "stairs, ramps, and landings" was the most lively
      category, with almost two million startled victims, but in
      other respects dangerous objects were far more benign than
      their reputations might lead you to predict. More people were
      injured by sound-recording equipment (46,022) than by
      skateboards (44,068), trampolines (43,655), or even razors and
      razor blades (43,365). A mere 16,670 overexuberant choppers
      ended up injured by hatchets and axes, and even saws and
      chainsaws claimed a relatively modest 38,692 victims.

      Paper money and coins (30,274) claimed nearly as many victims
      as did scissors (34,062). I can just about conceive how you
      might swallow a dime and then wish you hadn't ("You guys want
      to see a neat trick?"), but I cannnot for the life of me
      construct hypothetical circumstances involving folding money
      and a subsequent trip to the E.R. It would be interesting to
      meet some of these people.

      I would also welcome a meeting with almost any of the 263,000
      people injured by ceilings, walls, and inside panels. I can't
      imagine being hurt by a ceiling and not having a story worth
      hearing. Likewise, I could find time for any of the 31,000
      people injured by their "grooming devices".

      But the people I would really like to meet are the 142,000
      hapless souls who received emergency room treatment for
      injuries inflicted by their clothing. What _can_ they be
      suffering from? Compound pajama fracture? Sweatpants
      hematoma? I am powerless to speculate.

      I have a friend who is an orthopedic surgeon, and he told me
      the other day that one of the incidental occupational hazards
      of his job is that you get a skewed sense of everyday risks
      since you are constantly repairing people who have come a
      cropper in unlikely and unpredictable ways... Suddenly, thanks
      to Table 206, I began to see what he meant...


      so almost a million people a year are injured by beds, pillows,
      blankets, chairs, rockers, couches, etc -- but we don't
      conclude that "furniture is terribly dangerous."

      I think Bryson's last para is very telling. medicos are always
      repairing people who have come to grief -- the only cyclists
      they see are injured cyclists. perhaps this explains their
      consistent support of the Cycling Is Dangerous campaign? it is
      only in the last 5 years or so that some physicians have
      started to admit that the health benefits of cycling or walking
      regularly more than outweigh the risks.

      [apologies for typos in previous (Shaffner) text... was typing
      rather rapidly at the time.]

      [the Stat Abs US is available online, free, in PDF form,
      at http://www.census.gov/statab/www/ ]


      :De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
      :Mail: de@... | :
      :Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
    • nocarsdave@clarityconnect.com
      ... injury/fatality ... Indubitably! Now the question becomes, how to pry open the eyes of the murderers, which have been sealed so totally closed by the
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In CarFree One thing which I noted in my critique was that
        > incidents" involving bikes, and those involving pedestrians, are called
        > out in the "statement of problem" section as separate statistics. Other
        > (mutually exclusive!) categories are "driver speeding" and "drunk driver".
        > This biased taxonomy of collision incidents implicitly classifies
        > pedestrians and bikes as a causative category in collisions, on a par
        > with "driver speeding" and "drunk driver". The implication of such
        > mutually exclusive categories is that drunk drivers never hit cyclists
        > or pedestrians; neither do speeding drivers. We know empirically, from
        > experience on the street, that this is nonsense.
        > Drunk drivers and speeding drivers hit all kinds of things, including
        > pedestrians, bikes, lamp posts, and each other. Yet the police report
        > has concealed this risk factor (drunk and speeding drivers) and has
        > constructed in its place an artificial risk category called "cycling"
        > and another called "walking."
        > pedestrians and cyclists who die on public streets (or even on
        > sidewalks and driveways) are mostly killed by collision with
        > a motor vehicle. when law enforcement officials insist on
        > calling these "pedestrian accidents" or "bicycle accidents"
        > rather than "automotive crashes", there's a degree of concealment
        > going on. we're papering over the fact that these people would
        > not have died if they had not had to negotiate an environment
        > overcrowded with heavy, fast-moving vehicles driven by
        > inadequately qualified operators. they are implicitly blamed --
        > for not being in a car. at least that's how it looks to me.
        > de

        Indubitably! Now the question becomes, how to pry open the eyes of the
        murderers, which have been sealed so totally closed by the corporate
        dictatorships psycho-engineered propapanda?
        Looks pretty bleak. ..I guess we start at places like this! And
        perhaps with prolific use of the middle finger in traffic? What else?
        Dave S
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.