Only In America!

[historyman]

I must come to the defence of Norv. What he's saying (I think) is that there's no point labelling cycling as 'dangerous' as if from a point of view where a state of 'nil danger' is normal or at all achievable. All life is dangerous. Anything we do could shorten our life. The point is that cycling doesn't on average shorten our life more than any other course of action. So labelling it as 'dangerous' is seriously misleading. It suggests wrongly that if we didn't cycle, there would be no danger.

 

[yello]

So if you ignore the statistics, consider the activity dangerous and yet still do it, doesn't that mean you are taking unnecessary and dangerous risks?

In a nutshell, yes. Some may think that. I don't happen to think they're unnecessary because I enjoy cycling! My enjoyment out weighs the minimal risk.

 

[BentMikey]

I think it's stupid to call something dangerous when it has about the same level of danger as other activities people are prepared to accept quite happily in normal life. The cost of insurance shows that it's not a dangerous activity at all, you certainly couldn't classify general cycling as an extreme sport.

 

[yello]

I agree with you historyman, right up until the last 2 sentences. Because I think there is risk (and therefore danger) in cycling. I would like to be open about that and consider how cyclists can address it, as we do whenever we ride.

It is perhaps a somewhat semantic debate. That is, what does one mean by 'dangerous' and 'risk'? Does one mean likely injury or only possible? Personally, I take the 'possible' line because it makes me more aware, even if somewhat conservative.

As I said in my above post, I think the risks are minimal and worth taking, but the risks are none-the-less there. I think the debate moves on to more serious matters if we accept that.

 

[Wolf04]

In a nutshell, yes. Some may think that. I don't happen to think they're unnecessary because I enjoy cycling! My enjoyment out weighs the minimal risk.

To describe something as dangerous and then to go on and describe the risks involved as minimal is contradictory at best.

 

[Wolf04]

I think it's stupid to call something dangerous when it has about the same level of danger as other activities people are prepared to accept quite happily in normal life. The cost of insurance shows that it's not a dangerous activity at all, you certainly couldn't classify general cycling as an extreme sport.

Agree entirely

 

[yello]

I think it's stupid to call something dangerous when it has about the same level of danger as other activities people are prepared to accept quite happily in normal life.

It's there in your own words - cycling has about the same level of danger as other activities. We all willingly accept varying degrees of risk and danger in our everyday lives but our willingness doesn't diminish the dangers or risks. It does, hopefully, make us more aware of the dangers and to do something about them.

I don't want to labour this as I suspect the root of it lay with different definitions of dangerous.

 

[BentMikey]

Yello, yes I do see what you mean. Perhaps it's more of a life philosophy difference - you look and see danger everywhere, whilst I have a more controlled and limited definition of danger. For me dangerous activities would have to have significantly more risk than normal everyday life before I'd call them dangerous. Paragliding, for example.

 

[yello]

To describe something as dangerous and then to go on and describe the risks involved as minimal is contradictory at best.

No, not at all. Danger and risk are not opposites - danger entails risk. My definition of dangerous is that there is risk involved. That the risks are minimal doesn't mean something isn't dangerous... only less dangerous than something with high risk.

 

[yello]

Perhaps it's more of a life philosophy difference - you look and see danger everywhere

Spot on!

 

[Wolf04]

No, not at all. Danger and risk are not opposites - danger entails risk. My definition of dangerous is that there is risk involved. That the risks are minimal doesn't mean something isn't dangerous... only less dangerous than something with high risk.

Point taken, I guess I'm in the BentMickey school of risk perception.

 

[historyman]

Out of interest, does anyone know any studies on life expectancy of cyclists? e.g. one in 100,000 end up under trucks while the other 99,999 live till they're ninety?

 

[ChrisKH]

Out of interest, does anyone know any studies on life expectancy of cyclists? e.g. one in 100,000 end up under trucks while the other 99,999 live till they're ninety?

Whilst I feel certain that the positives outweigh the risks, I can't help but notice the number of obituaries in Cycle for CTC members who were run down or hit by cars compared with those who lived to the age of 98 and still doing club TT's. An exaggeration but you know what I mean. I think you tend to remember the former even if they are significantly few in number.

 

[BentMikey]

Mayer Hillman - the benefits outweigh the risks by 20 to 1. Effectively we can't afford not to cycle, irrespective of whether or not you wear a plastic hat.

 

[Keith Oates]

I know China is a heavily populated country but last year there were over 81,000 road deaths, that's a lot of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!