Another triathlete friend of mine is director of risk management for his company. There must be something in the water.

One thing my wife's oncologist said to my wife about her cancer that I really remembered. "You have a very rare cancer that only an extremely small percentage of the population get. But, statistics don't really matter when it involves YOU".

That statement hit really hit home. No matter how small the percentage, when it involves you or a loved one, that small statistic doesn't mean a thing.

That was my thought. I swim in the ocean in so cal, where there are great whites. I know my "odds" of getting bit are very very low. Million to 1 (just using generic terms) doesn't give me comfort if I'm the one.

That said, I still swim in the ocean and ride outside (on weekends), and I accept the risk that I may not come back or come back injured. But the stats don't give me comfort, as I don't think about the risk in those terms.

What I am getting at is 2x the risk or even 10x the risk of something that has super low odds of a fatality or injury (that being driving) does not seem that bad. As i said earlier, if I am worrying about extending life, I should cut out all refined sugars to keep my blood values solid to reduce heart disease risk, or stop eating anything that has even the slightest of risk to put me in the cancer ward, but we're all living blissfully daily doing nearly nothing to reduce our risk of heart disease and cancer from which 50% or so of us will die and instead worrying about the insanely low risk of death/injury from biking and staying indoors....as I mentioned for me in 400,000km of lifetime driving, only 4 incidents with drivers and this includes bike commuting into the downtown core of some of Canada's more populated cities (yeah, I know we all live in igloos), but more importantly riding through the thick of town in the likes of Bangalore, Tokyo, Beijing and Taipei not to mention bike touring with no incidents across all of western Europe and all the crazy traffic that comes with riding in Paris, or Barcelona or Milano..even unscathed riding around in Monrovia Liberia (talk about a messed up place with zero rules). Nothing every happened doing those trips. But meanwhile at home I have crashed on black ice turning into my driveway!!!!

As for the 1980 GTI, I'm OK with it. You'd have to convince my wife, who is in the ultra extreme risk aversion camp on every front of life so between the two of use we're an average couple on the risk management front!

Logic failure.
*Every American has cells. So all your cancer deaths come out of a pool of 318 million.
*Every American has hearts (except for maybe DJT-kidding). So all your cardiac deaths come out of a pool of 318 million
*Every American has brains. So all your Alzheimer deaths come out of a pool of 318 million.
*Every American has lungs. So all your respiratory deaths come out of a pool of 318 million.

*Every American doesn't cycle.

The thing is, that's a rather meaningless quote. While essentially true, it's a silly thing for the oncologist to say. Of course the probability of something happening to a random member of the population is no longer of much relevance to a person to whom it has already happened.
That misses the whole point of risk and statistical analysis. The probability of someone who has a rare cancer having a rare cancer is 100%.


This is the same as my criticism of nc452010's assertion (as I understand it, but I'm not sure I follow exactly) that since he's had an accident, he has proof that the risk is very significant. The risk that something you know already happened has happened is not a risk, it's a fact. Any statistics that include that incident will put it into perspective. I'm in no way suggesting that his misfortune is lessened by the fact he was in the minority. On the contrary, he may well feel very unlucky.
I'm not saying there's nothing to learn from the fact that something happened, as others have alluded to, it's possible that elements of the incident which occured could shed light on what increases the probability of an incident. Was the road busy, was it night or day, dry or wet or icy, was traffic driving into low sun, was there mist, how was the cyclist positioned, how was the cyclist dressed, were there lights or reflectors being used, was the driver experienced/drunk/young/old/stressed/tired, was the driver following the rules of the road or doing something illegal,........ the list goes on.
If you tend to ride at night, without decent lights and/or reflectors in an area with heavy traffic and poor roads and a local culture of drink driving and animosity towards cyclists - your risk is undoubtedly higher. The event that DID occur might shed light on some of these and highlight any local risk magnifiers, but the fact you had an incident doesn't prove anything in itself. If as a result of your incident you've realised there are a large numbers of local magnifiers that you reckon mean your risk is far higher than that of the general population, then okay, you may have a good reason to get off your bike. But if you were just unlucky, you were just unlucky, and if you can get past the understandable emotional response, that something which has happened once is likely to happen again, and see that your future risk is not adversely effected by your history, and if you still enjoy riding outdoors - you should continue to ride outdoors.

Perhaps there's a more structured way to discuss this that would help clarify where the disconnect is between those of opposing views on this subject.
As part of my job I regularly write risk assessments and put together method statements for engineering and construction works. It's invariably impossible to eliminate risk, unless you cancel the activity. You can only reduce it. The important thing is that the risk should be reasonable.
If I was to write a risk assessment for cycle training, there are a few things I'd want to know straight away:

1. What is the task we're trying to accomplish?
2. What are the risks?
3. How can the risks be mitigated?

1. I think there's a fundamental difference between two groups in this discussion on the topic of what we're trying to accomplish. One contingent see the task as becoming race fit. The other sees the task as enjoying the pursuit of triathlon and becoming race fit. These are different tasks. If riding outside while training is a key contributor part of enjoying the hobby, then it's not reasonable to eliminate it without a very compelling reason. If all that matters is being achieving race fitness then you may more easily consider compromises in the name of risk reduction.

2. There are figures available for cyclist fatalities in various countries/localities. It's legitimate to question the applicability of these stats from the general population as they relate to sport cyclists and triathletes. In the absence of a detailed breakdown, we may have to make educated guesses as to whether the figures for us, in our area and under our normal circumstances are lower or higher and by how much.

3. This is where I think we're all in broad agreement. Choosing roads with lots of space, light traffic, lower traffic speeds, fewer junctions will almost likely help significantly. Similarly, riding in daylight and/or with very visible clothing and lights/reflectors can reasonably be expected to reduce risk. Finally and most contentiously, riding indoors will most likely reduce risk (I can't say there's no risk when riding indoors, I doubt there are any figures due to the very small population to which it applies). The biggest disagreement is not whether riding indoors reduces risk but whether it's an option within the constraints of item 1. i.e. If riding outdoors is fundamental to our enjoyment of the sport, we can't fully accomplish the task while eliminating outdoor riding.

My position:

1. I want to enjoy both training and racing. Racing alone is not sufficient incentive to participate in the sport. I have to get enjoyment, satisfaction and health from the training too. For me the task is to enjoyably participate in the sport of triathlon.
2. I consider the risks for me personally to be slightly higher than the average but still reasonable. I base that on the mitigations listed in 3 below. On the downside, I do ride a lot in the mountains and have been known to descend at high speeds. While I have confidence in my abilities, I have to acknowledge that I could make a mistake, have a mechanical problem or have another rider or an animal get in the way and at high speeds the result would undoubtedly be nasty. So that one aspect of my riding probably shifts me from the safer than average side of the equation to the slightly less safe side.
3. I have decent (not brilliant) bike handling, I avoid traffic congestion areas, I ride mostly in the countryside (I live in an urban area but get out of it to ride as much as possible) where traffic volume is lower and I try and stick with less dangerous roads (that encourage high speeds with low visibility). I wear high visibility clothing, mostly with reflectives. In low light or dark conditions I ensure I'm using good lights. I don't ride when there's a strong chance of frost or if winds are very high. I think I'm very aware of my surroundings, and make allowances, where possible, for the potential poor skills and behaviour of other road users. I do not consider riding indoors to be a legitimate risk mitigation. It is simply changing the task.

Obviously, this (above) was done a lot better than I conveyed it.

The incidence of death may be low but how about non fatal incidents?

This does not equal a logic failure IMO... every America "could" cycle. I'm fine with the 700 as compared to the other things... that's a pretty small number no matter how you slice it. Granted when talking percentages you'd have to take into account those that actually "ride" bikes but the description is quite loose on that one given the whole drunk cycling bit.

The above quote was not by me!
I think you've replied to my post and copied in someone else's quote inadvertently?

It wasn't inadvertent. It was in reply to your last post. You're hung up thinking I'm trying to prove something via statistics. I'm not, so I don't know why you keep referencing that I am.

I don't care about statistics or probabilities of being injured. I just don't. Based on my experiences, I have a lower threshold of risk that I'm willing to accept (that isn't based on probabilities). Others are willing to accept much higher risks. They're not wrong for doing so and there's no fallacy in me ending up where I am. I think I've told you this about 3-4X, now. I was hoping hearing it from someone else would get through. I was mistaken.

I think most people have more fear of things they cannot "control" vs things they perceive might be within their control.
When you ride outdoors, your life is largely in the hands (and control) of motor vehicle drivers. Yes, you get to choose whether or not you are riding outdoors, but (unless you do something stupid or careless), whether or not you get hit by a car is usually in the driver's hands, not yours.
In contrast, if you climb a tree and fall out, it is usually 100% your fault. If you run over your own foot with the power mower, it is usually 100% your own fault.
A decade ago, I was hit by a speeding car that ran a red light and struck me while I was on my bike in a cross walk. My injuries were near fatal. That accident changed my life forever, and left me with a bit of fear that I think is more rational than not. I still ride outdoors a bit, but never with the sense of freedom that I felt before.
I do not climb trees, mow lawns, or stand on high uncovered ground during a storm, waiting to see if lightening will strike me--those are not activities that I love. But I loved riding outdoors, and now I love it a little less because I have so little control over the carelessness or recklessness of drivers.

Ok

I'm still confused, but I think there's little point continuing. We're not making progress.

I'm replying to what you appear to be saying but you're clearly not trying to imply what I'm inferring! Since different parts of your post seem, to me, to be contradictory.
When someone talks about the threshold of risk they're willing to accept, I think they are talking about the probability and severity of a potential occurrence, whether mathematically, intuitively or whatever. That, in my world, is what how you define risk. To me risk is inextricably linked to probability. So for you to tell us you have a low risk threshold and thus you won't ride your bike, but then declare a complete disinterest in relevant statistics seems ludicrous to me. You have mentioned a threshold a few times and to me a threshold would be based on some analysis which statistical data would inform. So, I don't think you have a threshold, I think you had a really bad experience, it's ruined cycling for you (assuming you previously enjoyed it) and you would rather I not try and convince you to go back out there. That's alright. It's understandable and I apologise if you thought I was just being argumentative.

Your previous experience is pretty much irrelevant to future risk but it is not irrelevant to your perception of it or to your enjoyment of cycling. And since this is a hobby, the latter is more important. If cycling indoors works for you and you are able to continue enjoying what you do, that's great and I'll stop trying to convince you you're wrong.

However, I will say that others should not cultivate an irrational fear and leave the roads without good reason. Anecdotes are not good reason. It's one thing to have already reached the point where, due to personal experience and resulting baggage, you feel you can no longer enjoy the roads. It's another to deprive yourself of freedom due to irrational fear you've willingly cultivated. So to those who enjoy riding outside and who are considering putting an end to that activity for fear they are being reckless....look at the statistics, live your lives, reject irrational fear. Don't base jump, don't do drugs, but by all means ride your bike responsibly and enjoy yourself!

I'm really not sure where you get this stuff......

I'm doing a 65.8 mi. ride in April (outdoors). I'll do several rides leading up to IM Louisville....outdoors. I have a very secure loop I can ride (from my driveway) that I'll likely never stop doing.

I'm recovering from shoulder surgery and don't feel it's healed enough to handle my bike the way I know I should be able to. So, I'll ride indoors, almost exclusively, training for Chatt. 70.3. After that, I'll likely only do the longer rides, outdoors (in prep for IMLou).

I've not lost that loving feeling (although cycling is NOT a passion, to ME).

Well I got the majority from you, if I've filled in any gaps with inaccurate assumptions...Oops - but I think it's understandable and make no further apologies.

I went back and checked a couple of posts in case I got you confused with another poster somewhere along the way but no, you are the guy who said he was a risk manager in post #25. Later said you didn't care about statistics. You claim to be deciding it's too dangerous to ride outside due to your low "risk threshold" but will nevertheless do a handful of training rides ahead of your upcoming events. This "risk threshold" is a mystery to me. I know what a risk threshold is but I have no idea how you quantify yours, or how you function as a risk manager given your approach.

Goodbye

My rollers would still like to kill me when I'm guilty of distracted riding. :)

It's not that difficult. My personal threshold has nothing to do with statistics. It doesn't need to, to be valid (for me). And, I don't care in the least if you understand it or approve. I think I said this, pages ago.

Take care.

Hello slowman and All,


https://cabikepedplan.civicomment.org/draft-plan

Psychological risk perception (as opposed to statistical risk) is a valid consideration for designing the future transportation system for California. (page 41 'interested but concerned bicyclists' prefer separation - trails or Class IV bike lanes)

What humans think about bicycling risk is an important factor to consider for increasing cycling participation.

When perceived risk for cyclists is reduced with separated bike lanes ..... cycling mode share increases.

A Caltrans survey showed that only 45% of those surveyed thought they could get to their destination safely by bicycle. (page 17)

As you point out if 20% of the cycling risk is caused by DUI and you do not drink and drive (or ride) you are controlling some of the risk and feel safer.

Survival is a basic instinct ....

Cycling risk has a risk element uncontrolled by the cyclist (motorists) .... as opposed to rock climbing risk (and other activities) where you are in control of much of the risk.

Perception of personal risk is influenced by how much control you have of containing the risk.

When considering being struct from behind (or in an intersection) by a motorist when cycling .... and if you are cycling within the trajectory of the of the motorists .... you are at the mercy of the motorist and not controlling the risk ..... and knowing the poor skills of some motorists (killing themselves or other motorists at a rate of over 30,000 each year in the US) and motorists' distractions (bees, children, cell phones, zoning out, sun glare, etc.) ..... and that motorists have over 5,000 rear end collisions each day in the US ..... there is a reasonable perception of uncontrolled risk by the cyclist.

In California from 2009 to 2014 there were 1,351 bicycle fatalities ..... 2.5 per week .... which keeps bicycle fatalities in the news.

Over the same period (2009-2014) motorist fatalities decreased 25% pedestrians rate stayed the same and cyclist fatalities increased 10%

It is not unexpected that cyclists feel uncomfortable with an uncontrollable risk.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

The release of 2016 motor-vehicle deaths yesterday adds some timely information to this discussion.

The issue is that although cars are much safer- anti lock brakes, air bags, accident avoidance vehicles, vehicles that can brake for you, etc.; you have total vehicle deaths rising, and rising at a *very* high percentage rate. The increase in the rate of motor-vehicle deaths in the last two years is the biggest rate increase in more than 50 years.

The facts above are not a good trend for cyclists on our roads.


It would not surprise me that the increase in deaths and injuries would be from an increase in distracted driving. This is not good for anyone on the roads, including cyclists. I do almost all my cycling outdoors and have had more close calls in the recent past with vehicles than ever before. I do think this is a real concern for many people, especially if you live in a high traffic community. I also personally knew 2 fellow riders that perished in bike/car accidents and know another fellow rider that had a bike/car accident that left him in a wheelchair. Now, personally knowing people that have died or been seriously injured, along with having many close calls, will shape one's perspective to be their reality and the reality that in some areas it could be more dangerous than any national or regional statistic. I personally thoroughly enjoy riding outdoors, but sometimes I think it's just not worth it. For now, my bike has lights on no matter if I'm going to the local ice cream store for dessert or I'm going out on a training ride, with the hope of maybe getting the attention from the driver of the car behind me.


There are 3 main reasons for driver fatalities: alcohol, speed and distracted driving.



2015 Brought Biggest Percent Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths in 50 Years http://www.newsweek.com/...ease-50-years-427759


"Past NSC research has indicated that alcohol, speed and distracted driving are the three major causes of fatalities on the road, contributing to 30.8, 30 and 26 percent of motor-vehicle deaths respectively."

2016 Was the Deadliest Year on American Roads in Nearly a Decade http://fortune.com/...ffic-deadliest-year/

Lower gas prices and and increased motor-vehicle mileage combined with risky activities like speeding and driving while texting is proving deadly for American drivers.

New preliminary 2016 data shared Wednesday from the National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died in motor vehicles crashes last year, a 6% rise from 2015. If those numbers bear out, it would be a 14% increase in deaths since 2014, the biggest two-year jump in more than five decades.

I was thinking about this thread and "relative to drivers" perhaps the safest place to ride is a narrow road with steep switchbacks. Driver's are 100% focused. Sure the risk to ourselves as cyclists is higher (better chance of a self generated crash), but relative to drivers it is probably safer than a flat road with a big bike shoulder since the drivers CAN fiddle with phones and feel safe. On a road with switchbacks, most adults are quite uncoordinated and have minimal spatial awareness compared to athletes....they are going to whiteknuckle their entire drive and be ultra attentive!!!!

I was thinking about this thread and "relative to drivers" perhaps the safest place to ride is a narrow road with steep switchbacks. //

I used to think this way too, until that guy in Waikaiola got killed by a cop no less. That is a windy, slow, and you would think pay attention kind of road, but there it is, he is dead now. Best bet is to just ride where there are less cars, really just an odds thing I think. If only 2 cars pass you vs 2000, odds are I will take the 2 any day on any road..