Re: Missing context
- From: Nick <Nick.spam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:43:08 +0100
On 29/08/2010 22:21, Colin McKenzie wrote:
I think you are making the mistake of not allowing enough for exposure.
The most comparable figures with pedestrians are per mile.
Out of curiosity what does comparable mean in this context?
most serious hillwalkers probably don't average more than about 20 miles
a week. A keen cycle commuter, like many on this NG, could easily do
five times that. And how many people walk anything like 20 miles a week,
let alone a hundred, on or beside roads?
So what you are saying is that if we want to estimate the expectation of injury we might suffer walking as opposed to cycling we need to adjust the risk/km figure to take in to account the fact that cycling gives us the opportunity to travel further.
For clarity when people (you) say the risks from walking and cycling are similar they are talking about the risk/km as opposed to the actual risk of incurring an injury?
If we look at the expectation of injury for a commuter similar to posters on this group, cycling at a speed maybe ~7 times as fast as a pedestrian, a ball park estimate may give us the cyclist is actually subjected to approximately an order of magnitude more risk than a typical pedestrian hour for hour. We could work with typical travelled distances walking vs cycling but you seem to be suggesting this would give a similar result.
So I guess we have to be very careful not to get confused by real life and keep it clear in our heads that the risk from cycling and walking is similar because the risk/km is only slightly higher cycling.
As a matter of interest, a husband and wife I know (in their 50s) have
both suffered serious and persistent injury from falls while walking, in
the last year or two: one hillwalking and one in London.
If there was a comparrison between 25 - 50 year old cyclists I am
convinced that within that group they would be more likely to be
hospitalised mile for mile cycling than walking.
I'm not, for the reasons stated. Furthermore, selecting age groups makes
the data even harder to interpret. I've seen figures showing that
17-21-year-old (or thereabouts) males are safer per mile cycling than
- Prev by Date: Re: Inadequacies of bus driving standards Re:up the inside of buses
- Next by Date: Re: Inadequacies of bus driving standards Re:up the inside of buses
- Previous by thread: Re: Missing context
- Next by thread: Re: Missing context