Via Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, here’s Paul Grignon’s animated video entitled “Money as Debt.” It’s an interesting primer on how our monetary system works. The last portion of the presentation strays into a controversial recommendation for government intervention, but overall it’s a worthwhile look at a topic which receives little public attention.

So how safe is cycling? It’s a question I sometimes wonder about, particularly when riding higher traffic roads.
This article on a Canadian website provides some statistics:

Fatalities by distance

Every 1.6 million kilometres (one million kilometres) cycled produces 0.039 cyclist fatalities, compared to 0.016 fatalities for motorists. They’re both very low, but the risk for cycling is more than double.

This comparison is only partially useful, because people typically drive much farther than they cycle.
Fatalities by time traveling

They [Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.] concluded that the fatality rate for every million hours spent cycling is 0.26, compared to 0.47 per million driving hours.

Fatalities by participation

According to the US National Safety Council, for every million cyclists in the US, 16.5 die each year, whereas for every million motorists, 19.9 die each year.

I’d be interested in knowing how “cyclist” is defined here. Obviously someone who rides 100 miles/week on the road has a higher risk exposure than someone who rides a few miles/week on a multi-use path.
Fatalities by crash rate

The odds of dying from a bicycle crash are one in 71. This compares to one in 75 for a light truck (pickup truck, SUV, van), one in 108 for a car, one in 43 for a truck, one in 26 for a motorcycle, and one in 15 for a pedestrian.
In other words, the odds of dying in a bike crash are about the same as the odds of dying in an SUV crash. The false sense of security that comes from an SUV tends to produce far more dangerous driving behaviour.

The article further notes that the odds of a rear-end collision with a vehicle–the type of crash I worry about the most–are fairly low:

According to a 2003 study in Toronto, collisions involving a motorist overtaking a bicycle accounted for only 11.9 percent of the total. Among those collisions, the cyclist contained minimal or minor injuries in nearly 90 percent of the incidents.

Still, the remaining 10 percent of collisions are presumably bad, and quite worrisome because the cyclist is often not at fault.
Risks versus benefits

The article rightly notes that when assessing the above risks, one should also consider the health benefits of cycling:According to a study by the British Medical Association, the average gain in “life years” through improved fitness from cycling exceeds the average loss in “life years” through cycling fatalities by a factor of 20 to 1.

Risk avoidance
Finally, the article notes that cyclists can, to some degree, limit their risk:

It might not be politically expedient to state, but in the majority of bicycle crashes, the cyclist is at least partly at fault. Cyclists are hit when they ride on the sidewalk and appear out of nowhere at intersections; when they pass on the right; when they ride at night without lights and reflectors; when they ride the wrong way down one way streets; when they ride too closly to parked cars; and so on.
. . .
However, the way you ride is a bigger factor in accident prevention. The absolute best way to avoid accidents is to ride as though you are driving a motor vehicle. In other words: be visible, follow the rules of the road, pay close attention to what’s happening around you, and practice defensive riding. You will earn the respect of motorists, maximize your safety, and get the most enjoyment from cycling.

Wise advice.

Former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan has come out with a book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. Initial coverage of the book has focused on his criticism the Bush administration’s (and Republican Congress’) excessive spending.

[One wonders if he is trying to set up a scapegoat in the event we head into a recession.]

But here’s an excerpt that strikes me:

Without elaborating, he writes, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

No, we don’t hear much about oil, do we?  We’ve heard plenty about vanished weapons, rebuilding schools, purple fingers, and supposed al Qaeda strongholds.  But we’ve not much about oil.  From either party, really.

After four years of endless debate on this war, one would think someone would start addressing the elephant sitting in the corner. We have a national dirty little secret.

After many months of hype, it’s here: General Petraeus’ golden report. Finally, the pivotal moment when America alters it’s course in Iraq. Or not.
Nonetheless, this week will generate a lot more debate on Iraq. If you’re like me, prolonged exposure to the talking points makes your head start to hurt. So I’ll reduce America’s near-term policy in Iraq to its simplest terms.
(1) The Bush administration (and its supporters) will continue to claim that success is just around the corner,
(2) But in reality we’ll have substantial American forces there through the end of Bush’s term (to keep the country from falling apart),
(3) Democrats will continue to offer strongly-worded complaints against this policy,
(4) But they’ll do nothing to stop it.
That’s it in a nutshell. Stay tuned for hours of discussion by “serious” experts who will pretend that something else might happen.

Via Frank Murphy, I learned that the Knoxville Symphony Orchestra is distributing a limited number of tickets to bloggers. I e-mailed the KSO, as instructed, and have been promised a pair of tickets to the season opener.
You really can’t beat that deal. I don’t “get out” much and haven’t been to the Tennessee Theatre since it was renovated. It should be an enjoyable evening.