I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.

Fair enough, my apologies for the misinterpretation.

The numbers I have seen do support your assertion that of ALL bike related injuries, most are related to the cyclist's behaviour, as most of them are simply falls that don't involve collisions with cars.

I have read the study, and I was aware of that caveat. However, you're misunderstanding the point - it was meant to address issues of legal culpability (e.g. fault vs. cause). Since the data were based on actual police reports, the researchers are basically disclaiming themselves from any claims of legal responsibility.

All you really need to do is look at "Table 3.2" in "Chapter 3: Key Findings" and sum the numbers for incidents caused by cyclists vs. those caused by motorists. The results are quite clear.

I have nothing against motorists, but you certainly seem to have a bias against cyclists.

I could respond in kind, and assert that it certainly seems like it was you who didn't bother to actually look at the numbers or make a good faith effort to understand what was being said; and simply cherry picked a single comment out of context which appeared on first glance to support your preconceptions. I could also go on to make similar unwarranted assumptions about your behaviour, and claim that they match my observed actions of motorists on the road as well (they do in fact)

But you know what? It's not constructive, my own observations about motorists are likely biased in many ways (e.g. availability heuristic etc...). Making unwarranted assumptions about others based on biased preconceptions serves no one any good. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did read the study and the numbers and simply misunderstood them.

In the future though, I would caution you to read things a bit more carefully before making unwarranted assumptions about another's behaviour or comprehension based solely on your own perceptions and preconceptions. It's always better to take a second look, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

No problem!

To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your comments, just that study. I see it bandied about all the time by anti-helmet zealots, and few of them bother actually assessing it's merits, so it's become kind of a pet peeve for me :P

I've never owned a car and have been commuting by bike for 20+ years myself and I always wear a helmet. I've never done cross-country or long-distance biking, so I can't speak to that, but even just cycling in-city, I wouldn't wear a helmet if I didn't have to. They're hot, constricting and the straps chafe, but as you say, the benefits outweigh the annoyances, my brain is the most expensive thing I own! If there were any reliable empirical data showing that helmets are less safe, I would ditch mine in an instant.

I'm not sure about the overtaking thing though, in this study by the City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/ "Motorist Overtaking" was the second most frequent cause of bike-car accidents (accounting for about ~12%), right after "Drive Out At Controlled Intersection" (by motorists - for cyclists it's called "Ride Out At Controlled Intersection"). I've seen stats for other major cities that corroborate the general finding (motorist behaviour causes the vast majority of incidents), but of course the specifics of types of incidents may vary by region.

This is incorrect. In any study regarding bike-car collisions I have seen, the overwhelming majority of them are caused by motorist negligence. Take a look at this study by the City of Toronto based on police reports:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/

It shows something like @83% of bike-car collisions were caused by the motorist, not the cyclist. This basic finding has been replicated in many other cities as well. I can't find the link at the moment, but IIRC it was like 90%+ caused by motorists in NYC.

Motorists are more reckless and dangerous than cyclists.

In pretty much every study conducted on bike-car accidents, the majority of them have been caused by motorists breaking the law, not cyclists. In Toronto, it's something like ~83% of bike-car collisions were the fault of the motorist, not the cyclist. You can see that data here:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/

The basic results have been replicated in many other cities as well. IIRC in NYC it was even worse, with like 90%+ bike-car accidents being caused by motorists...

That's actually a myth:

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/

You're talking about this study by Ian Walker:

http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

The problem is that it was horribly flawed.

It was conducted by a single guy (who was both subject and researcher), who is an "anti-helmet" activist (seriously). It was a sample size of 1, and it didn't control for the behaviour of the cyclist himself, or any controls at all for that matter (obviously couldn't be double-blind!).

It's completely bogus. There's no way to tell if the difference in distance was caused by the behaviour of the driver or the behaviour of the cyclist.

Additionally, he used the shady "truncated axis" technique to visually exaggerate the difference between the distances observed in the two conditions. This might be ok if the data was significant and it was pointed out that this was being done to highlight the significant difference. However, while he claimed the difference was big, he never said it was significant and he didn't provide any statistical methodology or significance metrics (e.g. p values). If the differences were significant, then why would he have not said so and included the metrics? I don't know a single scientist that would omit that. This is the kind of thing I would have failed students for when I was grading papers in grad school. There is precisely *zero* reason to visually exaggerate differences on a graph, while simultaneously omitting statistical significance analyses, unless you are being deliberately deceptive.

Check out the following link for some better information and meta-analyses:

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/

Actually, the majority of collisions between cars and bikes are because the motorist was not following the law, not the cyclist.

Here's some data from the City of Toronto pulled from police collision reports. Something like ~83% of bike-car collisions were found to be because of driver negligence:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/

The same basic findings have been replicated in many other cities (you can find the data online). IIRC it was even worse in NYC, with motorists being the cause of 90%+ bike-car collisions.

Are you sure?

I mean they might be mostly graphite, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there are more hydrocarbons in the asteroid belt than on the entire planet. Sadly, wikipedia is rather thin on the detail for C-Type asteroids.

My question is why are they focusing on M-Type instead of C-Type asteroids?

Sure metal is a useful building material, but the world's energy demand is far outstripping the supply.

Bringing back a couple of carbonaceous asteroids would very likely satisfy most of our global energy requirements for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. At the company I work for we are constantly looking for new developers, and it's not because we don't get enough people applying. We get swamped in resumes. There are tons of unemployed software developers out there.

Sadly, once we interview them, we realize why they are unemployed. Most of them are basically incompetent. Finding a developer with *real* talent amidst the hordes of people claiming to be developers is very challenging.

I mean he deserves to be as well known as they are. Here's a simple test: Ask a random non-scifi fan who Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke are. I'm willing to bet they can tell you (at least to the tune of: "scifi writer"). If you asked them who PKD was, I highly doubt they would have a clue.

Simply producing a volume of brilliant work doesn't mean you're going to get the recognition you deserve for it.

Anecdotal

First, I said "almost unknown" not "unknown". Second, prove it.

I cannot find any references to sales figures for PKD's books, but in his own words (from this interview):

...there is also the very real possibility that if I tried to do the cheapo novelization I would actually fail to do it, literally could not write a commercial novel that would be something that would sell millions of copies

That interview was done in 1981 (a year before he died), "The Man in the High Castle" was published in 1962 and it's one of his most popular and known books. If it had sold "millions of copies ... worldwide", you think he might have known about it. Sure, there's a slim chance it has sold millions since then, but I can't find any evidence of that and we are talking about "while he was alive". It seems you are making things up.

Thus, I really think my "almost unknown" statement (adequately supported, I believe you will find, by PKD's wikipedia entry) and PKD's own words trump your anecdotes and made up figures.