Thursday, August 21, 2014

Oh Come on Why Won't Anyone Pay Attention to That UC Study About Bicycle Doom!?!

Here's a picture of a trauma room - Scary Right?  Don't even think of getting near a bike now!
Remember when I harped about that UC Study that irrefutably concludes that cycling is the most dangerous thing ever?  No, no not this UC bike study.  And I told you that the city is covering up the fact that you have a 0015% chance of getting hurt while biking in San Francisco?  Well here it is again!  I figure since no one is recognizing this as a beacon of doom, I'll just keep ranting on and on about it like any sensible person would do.  Here is some more Q&A on this important study on bicycle ruin.

Question 1: Does the city really do anything right?  How is this statistically insignificant amount of crashes any more or less important than car crashes, or pedestrians accidents?  Are you just trying to scare people into not biking?

B-Boy's Answer:  You just don't get it!  It's all part of the massive conspiracy with the all powerful SF bike coalition that dates back all the way to the Kennedy assassination.  Also, have I ever told you about how much I hate muslins.  Those cotton delicate sheers really grind my gears!

Question 2: Wait, the study says that there's more AVB (Automobile Vs. Bicycle) accidents than CO (Cyclist Only) accidents.  Doesn't that suggest that many of these accidents could be prevented by simply having motorists behave better on the roads and design better, safer, streets?

Bobbert's Answer:  Don't distract yourself from the real conclusion of this study.  People got hurt biking so it would be better if we simply create more barriers to stop cyclists from ever setting ass on a bike.  Do you really think that motorists are going to behave any better, ever?

Question 3: Don't the authors of this study come to the following conclusion: "Access to bicycling and other non-motorized modes of transportation is a significant need, especially in light of the public health issues resulting from inactivity. To encourage bicycling, improved roadways and management of risk and risk perception is key."

Bobby's Answer: They're a bunch of brain washed dicks!  The point is that even if you touch a bike you run the risk of winding up in the emergency room.

Have I shown Michael Helquist's  picture before?  He hurt his arm 5 years ago biking when he hit a pothole.  He's fine how but that won't stop me from using it every single chance I get!
image found here.
Question 4: This report really doesn't mesh with the latest article about Citi bikes. "After 23 million rides, no deaths in U.S. bike share programs" and only 40 people have been injured.  Doesn't this suggest that the more people bike the safer they are in numbers?  Isn't that cause enough to conclude that we need better infrastructure and more people out on bikes?  Haven't you seen other cities and countries where the crash rate is incredibly low?  Could this suggest there's different kinds of biking that contribute to injury (eg. cyclo-cross, long distance, daredevils?:

Bababui's Answer: Those are in different cities and countries, so I absolutely and conveniently cannot comment on them.  It has nothing to do with my inability to see outside of my own bias and weigh evidence from various points of view.

Question 5: The study also mentions "Surveillance data from both police records and hospital records will enable a better understanding of the needs for cycling infrastructure and public health education through evidence based research on both national and international scales." Are you suggesting that they're intelligent when it comes to uncovering the facts, but they're terrible interpreting the facts and making recommendations?

Bobboy's Answer: Shut up!  The government should be scaring the shit out of anyone who bikes in the city! They should actively discourage people from foolishly attempting to travel a densely packed 50 square mile city by bike.  Here's a picture of a mangled bike.  Put on your "Everything was Amazing in the 50s" glasses and read that study again!
DOOOOOM!!!  I show it because I ~care~ about you all very much. xoxo


  1. If anyone wonders what Bob is talking about he's lampooning this crackpot.

    1. I don't know who the bigger moron is

    2. He came up with a new one too and this time he's razzing some dude at the Bay Guardian.

  2. The study. You're not talking about the study. Bring it back to the study. There was this one study that said something that agreed with me. Nobody should ride bikes because of the study. Let's talk about the study.

    * I enjoy being parodied, however witlessly
    * You bike guys have a reading comprehension problem
    * When are you going to address the study?
    * You bike people just don't get it/aren't very smart
    * I can demean your comment since it was made anonymously so therefore it has no merit
    * I only care about your safety. If anything, I'm guilty of caring too much for you bike assholes

    1. I demand you put an arbitrary name on your comment! But, since I agree with everything you say I don't really have a problem with you, anon.

  3. What I don't understand is why people can't draw the same conclusions as I do from the study, which is this: If we allow people to ride bikes in SF, enormous pterodactyls will descend from the sky, ripping joggers, poodles, and even babies from the ground and devouring them in their beaky maws. While I understand that is not the same conclusion as the study's authors, I feel that I am an authority on the subject and can draw my own rational, obvious take-aways. Anytime somebody disagrees with my interpretation, I will reasonably and calmly point out to them that they aren't paying attention to the very specific and very rational deductions I am making, most likely because they have been bought off by the all powerful bicycle coalition.

    1. Nooooo!!!! Your theory certainly has merit. Will you warn me before these Pterodactyls come for my innards? Does SF have a PWS - Pterodactyl Warning System in place!?!