107 deaths, but carry on exaggerating if the actual figures aren't high enough to make your point!we had what 200 deaths on bikes
107 deaths, but carry on exaggerating if the actual figures aren't high enough to make your point!we had what 200 deaths on bikes
ok 107 dead, - the normal ratio to Kia is 1-3 wia so thats 300+ seriously injured -
That maybe your advice, but it's not mine, I don't know where you get it from!ok 107 dead, - the normal ratio to Kia is 1-3 wia so thats 300+ seriously injured -
well my advice (actually your advice as the risk is so minor) don't have lights , wear black, cycle at night , wear headphones and ignore all traffic around you and road signs and traffic laws
you will be just fine.
That maybe your advice, but it's not mine, I don't know where you get it from!
Perhaps from the same place that you got the 200 cyclists killed last year?
I'm not even going to ask about your "calculations" for the number seriously injured.
a good question, and one that you won't get an answer to. My guess is........a lot.
Were these battle casualty ratios you refer to derived from actual battlefield data or in incidents occurring while the soldiers were cycling to and from the battlefield? We should be told., but I could be wrong. - (probably am).
IIRC there are about 2,000,000 regular cyclists, defined as people who ride more than once a month.2225845 said:Or we could use a real figure, unless just making one up is more fun for you.
It doesn't, but as you've just completely made up 3 of the variables, the result is fairly meaningless.do you know how many bikes are on the road on an average day ? - (the number of bike owners was actually irrelevant its bikes on the road at any one time.)
but (again I don't know the figure) if an average bike ride by each person on the road is say 5km - thats on average 10 serious injuries a day based on 1 per 1000,000km cycled.
doesn't sound so good now does it.
2227617 said:Which did you wear, the Indian head-dress?