Is cycling more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago?

[BostonFixed]

Thus requiring the need for helmets, or did the people who rode 25+ years ago have no brains?

Or is it all about percieved risk and people being more afraid and cautious now than some years ago.


Please. This is serious, not a troll, no need for another helmet debate.

[scarry]

As always, I'm struck by the intensity of feeling that helmet zealots bring to their choice of headgear. As a purely factual and practical matter, I don't doubt that helmets are of some value (though the value is systematically exaggerated). But the violence and bitterness of invective used by the true-believers suggests to me that something more than utilitarian considerations are at work.

Naturally, I have a theory.

Let's face it: for an adult to get on a bike in this country is a distinctly transgressive act. It's as if you should go out in public wearing a diaper.

My guess is that the helmet somehow restores ritual purity after the polluting touch of the bicycle. It's a sacrament of reconciliation. We deprecate the indignation of our outraged culture by a symbolic gesture of obeisance, in the form of a funny hat.

Wearing the helmet acknowledges, in the first place, that cycling is both abnormal and dangerous. We don't wear protective gear when we do normal things. No doubt there would be some increment of safety if people wore helmets to go to the bathroom -- those tile floors can be as slippery as any oil patch -- but nobody would do that, because going to the bathroom is normal. So putting the helmet on says that the cyclist accepts and acknowledges the social construction of cycling as a weird, risky act. It's a placatory gesture, a gesture of deference.

But it also goes beyond that, and says something, affirmatively, about the cyclist. It says that he or she is a reasonable, grown-up, responsible, acculturated person, even with a bike between his legs. It's not what you think! screams the helmet. My wearer, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, isn't a deviant suffering from arrested development. She is a careful, prudent, upright citizen with a college education. She likes to have fun, but she is careful to do so in approved ways, and follow all the guidelines wisely laid down for our benefit by Experts.

And that's why the helmet folks love their funny hat so much, and get so mad when you make fun of it. The helmet puts them right with God. When they've got the helmet on, they're good, clean, right-thinking folks again, not bad, dirty, out-of-control, off-the-reservation oddballs.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Naturally, I have a theory.

I seldom agree with your observations, BUT your theory about the source of the passion of the helmet zealots being something other than increased danger, sounds more than plausible to me.

[genec]

Thus requiring the need for helmets, or did the people who rode 25+ years ago have no brains?


Please. This is serious, not a troll, no need for another helmet debate.

As a cyclist who has been commuting on and off for over 30 years, I have to say yes... cycling is more dangerous now then 25 years ago.

25 years ago there was less traffic, due to lower population densities, traffic was generally slower due to lower performace vehicles, and autos were smaller... SUVs did not exist and even large vehicles such as vans were not that prevalent.

Today the streets are crowded with vehicles that have been designed to use all 8.5 feet of allowable width, and speed limits have been pushed up to meet an adopted 85 percentile rule of traffic flow... which, since vehicles are higher performance, is typically faster then 25 years ago. Couple all that with better soundproofing and standard air conditioning and music systems and the motorist is not even likely to have their windows rolled down... thus is further separated from their operating environment.

To that picture add cellphones, in vehicle GPS navigation, CD players, and DVD players and we have a very crowded scene of fast large vehicles with very distracted drivers that is not the same as the picture some 25 years ago... many years before the words "Road Rage" were ever uttered.

Scary, eh?

[Treespeed]

As always, I'm struck by the intensity of feeling that helmet zealots bring to their choice of headgear. As a purely factual and practical matter, I don't doubt that helmets are of some value (though the value is systematically exaggerated). But the violence and bitterness of invective used by the true-believers suggests to me that something more than utilitarian considerations are at work.

Naturally, I have a theory.

Let's face it: for an adult to get on a bike in this country is a distinctly transgressive act. It's as if you should go out in public wearing a diaper.

My guess is that the helmet somehow restores ritual purity after the polluting touch of the bicycle. It's a sacrament of reconciliation. We deprecate the indignation of our outraged culture by a symbolic gesture of obeisance, in the form of a funny hat.

Wearing the helmet acknowledges, in the first place, that cycling is both abnormal and dangerous. We don't wear protective gear when we do normal things. No doubt there would be some increment of safety if people wore helmets to go to the bathroom -- those tile floors can be as slippery as any oil patch -- but nobody would do that, because going to the bathroom is normal. So putting the helmet on says that the cyclist accepts and acknowledges the social construction of cycling as a weird, risky act. It's a placatory gesture, a gesture of deference.

But it also goes beyond that, and says something, affirmatively, about the cyclist. It says that he or she is a reasonable, grown-up, responsible, acculturated person, even with a bike between his legs. It's not what you think! screams the helmet. My wearer, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, isn't a deviant suffering from arrested development. She is a careful, prudent, upright citizen with a college education. She likes to have fun, but she is careful to do so in approved ways, and follow all the guidelines wisely laid down for our benefit by Experts.

And that's why the helmet folks love their funny hat so much, and get so mad when you make fun of it. The helmet puts them right with God. When they've got the helmet on, they're good, clean, right-thinking folks again, not bad, dirty, out-of-control, off-the-reservation oddballs.

Interesting hypothesis, and if anyone disagrees they are just getting defensive about their "funny little hat." Another hypothesis is that helmet wearers like the idea of putting something between their head and the asphalt. I really doubt that many serious cyclists care what the general public thinks about their appearance.

[Ritehsedad]

I think being on the road on a bike, in a car, as a pedestrian, etc. is more dangerous today than it was 25 years ago. One additional reason genec didn't mention was car jackings.

Remember the old Sarge on Hill Street Blues? "Hey, lets be careful out there."

[Alekhine]

I really doubt that many serious cyclists care what the general public thinks about their appearance.

Just curious, and not saying I know the answer, but if that's true, then why do so many go for the $100 Bell rather than the $20 Giro when they're both rated to the same safety standards? And why so many "why do cycling clothes look dorky/cool/etcetera" threads? And how do companies selling $150 jerseys stay in business?

[BostonFixed]

Just another side note: Is life for an average person more dangerous now than some years ago?

Or is fear blown out of proportion, etc.?

[dan828]

As always, I'm struck by the intensity of feeling that helmet zealots bring to their choice of headgear. As a purely factual and practical matter, I don't doubt that helmets are of some value (though the value is systematically exaggerated). But the violence and bitterness of invective used by the true-believers suggests to me that something more than utilitarian considerations are at work.

Naturally, I have a theory.

Let's face it: for an adult to get on a bike in this country is a distinctly transgressive act. It's as if you should go out in public wearing a diaper.

My guess is that the helmet somehow restores ritual purity after the polluting touch of the bicycle. It's a sacrament of reconciliation. We deprecate the indignation of our outraged culture by a symbolic gesture of obeisance, in the form of a funny hat.

Wearing the helmet acknowledges, in the first place, that cycling is both abnormal and dangerous. We don't wear protective gear when we do normal things. No doubt there would be some increment of safety if people wore helmets to go to the bathroom -- those tile floors can be as slippery as any oil patch -- but nobody would do that, because going to the bathroom is normal. So putting the helmet on says that the cyclist accepts and acknowledges the social construction of cycling as a weird, risky act. It's a placatory gesture, a gesture of deference.

But it also goes beyond that, and says something, affirmatively, about the cyclist. It says that he or she is a reasonable, grown-up, responsible, acculturated person, even with a bike between his legs. It's not what you think! screams the helmet. My wearer, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, isn't a deviant suffering from arrested development. She is a careful, prudent, upright citizen with a college education. She likes to have fun, but she is careful to do so in approved ways, and follow all the guidelines wisely laid down for our benefit by Experts.

And that's why the helmet folks love their funny hat so much, and get so mad when you make fun of it. The helmet puts them right with God. When they've got the helmet on, they're good, clean, right-thinking folks again, not bad, dirty, out-of-control, off-the-reservation oddballs.

Very creative! But do you really think that people are that introspective?

I wear a helmet, but it's just simply to protect my head in case of an accident-- frankly, I could give a **** about any sort of perceived social statement/protest/rationalization that the helmet makes, nor am I worried about anyone else's helmet use (other than some friends and family). If you find yourself either getting mad about someone else's use/lack of use or advocacy of use/lack of use of some type of equipment, you obviously have far to much time on your hands to be worried about such trivia. Get a life.

[Treespeed]

Just curious, and not saying I know the answer, but if that's true, then why do so many go for the $100 Bell rather than the $20 Giro when they're both rated to the same safety standards? And why so many "why do cycling clothes look dorky/cool/etcetera" threads? And how do companies selling $150 jerseys stay in business?

I don't know about everyone else, and unlike the so-called zealots I don't care if anyone else wears a helmet, but I bought the $100 helmet ($60 on sale) because it is lighter. A conservative estimate is that I wear my helmet 400 hours a year and I'm going to spend a little extra to get the most comfortable one I can afford. Why do folks buy $150 jerseys, who knows. Why do people drive 300hp sports car when they can't legally drive over 70mph and a toyota corrola will work just as well.
And I would pose the question back to Scarry, why does there have to be some inherent insecurity in helmet wearers, and why do anti-helmet advocates have to resort to ad-hominem attacks to make their point. Unlike a $150 jersey, a quality helmet has a functional as well as fashion quality. The quality of safety provided by a helment is of course up for debate, but to argue that a helmet provides no increase in protection to a cyclist is false.

[Blue Order]

I fall into the "want something between my head and the asphalt" category. I also fall into the "don't want to look like a dork while cycling" category. I used to commute regularly before helmets became de rigeur. I also commuted regularly after helmets became de rigeur. The difference between before and after was a more diffuse awareness of the realities of head injuries, rather than an increase in danger. I also think that cycling is more dangerous now for the aforementioned reasons, and I'll add another reason it's more dangerous now: the idiots who are hostile to cyclists just didn't exist 20 years ago.

[merlinextraligh]

As always, I'm struck by the intensity of feeling that helmet zealots bring to their choice of headgear. As a purely factual and practical matter, I don't doubt that helmets are of some value (though the value is systematically exaggerated). But the violence and bitterness of invective used by the true-believers suggests to me that something more than utilitarian considerations are at work.

Naturally, I have a theory.

Let's face it: for an adult to get on a bike in this country is a distinctly transgressive act. It's as if you should go out in public wearing a diaper.

My guess is that the helmet somehow restores ritual purity after the polluting touch of the bicycle. It's a sacrament of reconciliation. We deprecate the indignation of our outraged culture by a symbolic gesture of obeisance, in the form of a funny hat.

Wearing the helmet acknowledges, in the first place, that cycling is both abnormal and dangerous. We don't wear protective gear when we do normal things. No doubt there would be some increment of safety if people wore helmets to go to the bathroom -- those tile floors can be as slippery as any oil patch -- but nobody would do that, because going to the bathroom is normal. So putting the helmet on says that the cyclist accepts and acknowledges the social construction of cycling as a weird, risky act. It's a placatory gesture, a gesture of deference.

But it also goes beyond that, and says something, affirmatively, about the cyclist. It says that he or she is a reasonable, grown-up, responsible, acculturated person, even with a bike between his legs. It's not what you think! screams the helmet. My wearer, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, isn't a deviant suffering from arrested development. She is a careful, prudent, upright citizen with a college education. She likes to have fun, but she is careful to do so in approved ways, and follow all the guidelines wisely laid down for our benefit by Experts.

And that's why the helmet folks love their funny hat so much, and get so mad when you make fun of it. The helmet puts them right with God. When they've got the helmet on, they're good, clean, right-thinking folks again, not bad, dirty, out-of-control, off-the-reservation oddballs.

How about a different theory. Helmets save lives.

[genec]

Just another side note: Is life for an average person more dangerous now than some years ago?

Or is fear blown out of proportion, etc.?

Is the "average person" a cycling commuter?

Really to answer your question, ask an insurance actuary.

But consider that in the past 25 years or so even auto accidents are more survivable... with passive restraint systems that did not even exist in earlier times. Even playgrounds are not the playgrounds of my youth... today they come covered in some form of rubber and all the "toys" are plastic... in my youth a good grinding on the decomposed granite playground after jumping from the hot metal slide was considered de rigeur.

[Bikepacker67]

25 years ago there was less traffic, due to lower population densities, traffic was generally slower due to lower performace vehicles

Ya... uhhhuh :)

http://www.musclecarnationals.com/gallery/charger/68burntoutchrg.jpg

[genec]

Ya... uhhhuh :)

http://www.musclecarnationals.com/gallery/charger/68burntoutchrg.jpg


Sure and what was the weight of that vehicle?

Compare 0-60 of that vehicle to the 0-60 of a similar vehicle today.

[Bikepacker67]

Sure and what was the weight of that vehicle?

Compare 0-60 of that vehicle to the 0-60 of a similar vehicle today.

I dunno about that... Sure they weighed more, but with a 427 cu in, many could do a 1/4 mile in about 10 seconds - stock.

[banerjek]

As a cyclist who has been commuting on and off for over 30 years, I have to say yes... cycling is more dangerous now then 25 years ago.
I would say it's safer now. Yes, there is more traffic, but the roads are better (smoother, wider, improved shoulders) and bicycle technology as well safety gear (clothing, lights, mirrors, etc) has improved significantly. In addition, motorists seem much more accepting of cyclists. I wouldn't have dared dress the way I do now 20 years ago.

However, "safety" is a relative term. About 20 years ago, I lost my front wheel when descending a hill as fast as I could. Even with the helmet, I was knocked out. This year, a buddy of mine had a grate grab his wheel when he was doing 20+. The impact shattered his helmet and knocked him silly but he was OK aside from the normal cuts and bruises that correspond with whomping cement really hard. Without helmets, both of us would have had severe head injuries if not a trip to the morgue.

Helmet technology has improved so they keep your head reasonably well ventilated while providing protection against hard crashes. While I doubt they make much difference you're grinding up the side of a mountain at slow speed, for even vaguely normal speeds they can make a huge difference.

why do so many go for the $100 Bell rather than the $20 Giro when they're both rated to the same safety standards?
Because the cheapo helmets have terrible ventilation so you get overheating problems. In addition, they are heavy and difficult to adjust properly. I'm not suggesting that some cyclists don't buy for style, but you have to pay for decent equipment -- same as you do for other components.

[SoonerBent]

Ya... uhhhuh :)



Muscle cars were and are the raw power leaders. But genec has a point. In todays congested city traffic a small, quick handling car is more dangerous to us than the musclecars of old. They didn't turn very well.

Also, back to the OP's question. Helmets didn't really exist 20+ years ago. The "hair nets" of the 60s and 70s were useless. The early hockey type Bell helmets weighed a ton, had no real vents and were butt ugly. The early no-shell foam helmets were light and vented but while being pretty effective were too far back towards useless in my opinion. So the 90s microshell helmets were the first really effective and practical helmets, having a lot to do with helmets not catching on until then.

SS

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How about a different theory. Helmets save lives.
That theory is the subject of other threads.

[HiYoSilver]

Very interesting question.

In spite of the increase in preception of new road dangers:
--SuperUglyVehicles [aka trucks],
--cell phones,
--more congestion,
--more to fiddle with in the vehicle, and
--the tendency to think of a vehicle as a home office instead of a mode of transportation.

There are some reasons why cycling is safer now than it was 20 years ago:
-- more congestion means lower speed differences between moving traffic and cyclist speed [for example, had to take business trip to bay area and rental car had avg speed display. Avg speed for 223 miles was 29.8 mph.]
-- gaudy, in your face cyclists clothes
-- everyone has heard of TourDeFrance and Lance Armstrong
-- blinking red lights at night are assumed to be cyclists
-- most cyclists wear helmets, unheard of anyone wearing 20 years ago
-- bike headlights are better than old dyno lights
-- national data showing cycling fatalaties shows a good decline for at least last 10 years.

So, it's a wash. What has changed? How about the parent assumption?
--Years ago, yeah, go ride your bike.
--Today, uh,don't forget your helmet, wear gloves, your batteries good?, got your cell phone in case you get in trouble? and the litany goes on.....
Ring any bells?

If you dig deeper, you'ld find a strong phobia of death and a unconfrontable fear that this body is all there is to life.
So it's more of the "let's enjoy what we have now" and an increasing fear of being out of control, so parents, and by extension, their governmental parental representatives, veer towards a strong control freak mentality.

How did I do? Stay away from the old helmet controversies? :-)

[Treespeed]

As far as the OP's original question is the world more dangerous, I would argue, "no." I certainly feel safer in my current car, Audi A4 then anything I drove 15 years ago. I know for a fact that Los Angeles, especially my neighborhood is safer than it was 25 years ago. And despite the current administrations fear mongering I don't worry too much about a terrorist attack. Though living in Los Angeles I wish they would have done more about North Korea than trying to stir up their apocalyptic holy war in the middle east.

As far as cycling goes I would say that I feel much safer, most importantly I'm more experienced, brakes have gotten better, I don't have to take my hands off the brakes to shift, and most importantly lighting technology is much better than it was even ten years ago. And even here in Los Angeles I encounter a whole lot less road rage then I did 15 years ago in the rural Pacific Northwest.

-Marcus

[genec]

-- national data showing cycling fatalaties shows a good decline for at least last 10 years.

Has ridership increased or decreased?

[Alekhine]

I don't know about everyone else, and unlike the so-called zealots I don't care if anyone else wears a helmet, but I bought the $100 helmet ($60 on sale) because it is lighter. A conservative estimate is that I wear my helmet 400 hours a year and I'm going to spend a little extra to get the most comfortable one I can afford. Why do folks buy $150 jerseys, who knows. Why do people drive 300hp sports car when they can't legally drive over 70mph and a toyota corrola will work just as well.



I was listening to NPR the other morning and they had a whole program about a girl in NYC who ran up $20,000 in debt just buying pants and shirts and designer bags for dates.

I'm not necessarily supporting scarry's hypothesis here, but I do think that people care about their appearance in the eyes of others, for sure, in all activities - I think it's especially true in today's cycling world; I've never seen so many uniformed cyclists in 30 years of riding as I do now.

[HiYoSilver]

Has ridership increased or decreased?

I don't recall if numbers are actual numbers or numbers/unit. I think it was numbers/unit. You'll have to go to NTSB and other sites to pull up the data. There should be data from 2004 and earlier.

[HiYoSilver]

I dunno about that... Sure they weighed more, but with a 427 cu in, many could do a 1/4 mile in about 10 seconds - stock.

Yeah, times were about the same. But now times are just starting to get faster.

427 on a charger????????? Not GM vehicle.

[scarry]

O, I wear a helmet, or helmut if you're German. I do many long rides on mountain roads at high speeds, so of course I wear my helmet.

About the only time I don't is if I'm going to Critical Mass or on a concert ride, or to the farmers market a few blocks away. And I do ride a recumbent, less chance of a head-first fall.

The essay was just food for thought about bicycling's standing in American sociaty. In Amsterdam I hear that you very seldom see bicyclists with special clothing or helmets, because it's just a normal activity. That was the point of the essay, not as an anti-helmet screed.

[scarry]

How about a different theory. Helmets save lives.

Getting autos to just obey the speed limit, and not open their car doors in our face would save more lives.
But it's easier to get bicyclists to wear helmets.

That way after some poor helmetless rider is mowed down by a cell-phone talking driver, the report can say that they were not wearing a helmet, in spite of the fact that every bone in their body was broken.

[jnbacon]

The essay was just food for thought about bicycling's standing in American sociaty. In Amsterdam I hear that you very seldom see bicyclists with special clothing or helmets, because it's just a normal activity. That was the point of the essay, not as an anti-helmet screed.

I was just in the Hague, and very few bicyclists wear specialized clothing. The bicycling doesn't seem all that much "safer" in terms of doors, vehicles, and speed. Driving is very hectic there.

Yes, they do have lots of separated bike paths with their own lights, but these are not everywhere, and cyclists are thick on busy, crowded, non-laned streets. The main thing that seems to make it safer to me, (not based on stats) is the ubiquity of cyclists, meaning drivers are never inexperienced in dealing with them or looking for them. Plus, if you hit a cyclist, you are almost always at fault, so they watch out.

[randya]

Very creative! But do you really think that people are that introspective?

I wear a helmet, but it's just simply to protect my head in case of an accident-- frankly, I could give a **** about any sort of perceived social statement/protest/rationalization that the helmet makes, nor am I worried about anyone else's helmet use (other than some friends and family). If you find yourself either getting mad about someone else's use/lack of use or advocacy of use/lack of use of some type of equipment, you obviously have far to much time on your hands to be worried about such trivia. Get a life.
You're missing the point, it's not introspective conscious thought, but rather their insidious pre-programmed subconscious at work...

[librarian]

Is cycling more dangerous now than it was 20 years ago?
Thus requiring the need for helmets, or did the people who rode 25+ years ago have no brains?
Or is it all about percieved risk and people being more afraid and cautious now than some years ago.


And the answer is "We don't know"
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/perspective.htm

Bicycling Crashes In Perspective

The loss of 622 lives in bicycle/motor vehicle crashes in 2003, almost two people every day of the year, is an awful toll. The good news is that the number of bicyclist fatalities each year is falling - down from 859 back in 1990, a drop of 28 percent in thirteen years. The number of reported injuries involving bicyclists is also falling, from 68,000 in 1993 to 46,000 in 2003. However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of bicycle crashes causing injury are ever recorded by the police, possibly as low as ten percent.

The raw numbers hide all kinds of trends, truths, and lessons, and they beg a wide range of questions. Is bicycling dangerous? Is it more dangerous than other modes of travel? Is bicycling getting safer? Who is getting killed in bicycle crashes, where, when, and why?

Is bicycling dangerous?
Obviously with 622 deaths last year, there are risks associated with riding a bicycle. Bicycle fatalities represent just under two percent of all traffic fatalities, and yet bicycle trips account for less than one percent of all trips in the United States. However, bicycling remains a healthful, inherently safe activity for tens of millions of people every year - recent numbers from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reveal that more than 40 million adults rode a bicycle within the past 30 days.

The public health community is now recognizing that lack of physical activity, and a decline in bicycling and walking in particular, is a major contributor to the more than 300,000 premature deaths caused by heart attacks and strokes - this number dwarfs the 40,000 annual deaths due to motor vehicle crashes and the relatively small 622 bicyclist deaths.

Is bicycling more dangerous than other modes of travel?
As mentioned above, bicyclists are over-represented in the crash data as they account for almost two percent of fatalities but less than one percent of trips. However, there is no reliable source of exposure data to really answer this question: we don't know how many miles bicyclists travel each year, and we don't know how long it takes them to cover these miles (and thus how long they are exposed to motor vehicle traffic, for example).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration uses a fatality rate per million population to state that 2.14 cyclists were killed per one million population in 2003 - the same figure for pedestrians would be 16.3 people per million and for motor vehicle fatalities the figure is closer to 127 people per million. By that measure, bicycling looks considerably safer than other modes!

Is bicycling getting safer?
A drop of 28 percent in fatalities since 1990 certainly sounds good - but without knowing how many people are riding, and how far they are riding, there's no way of knowing whether the drop in crashes is because fewer people are bicycling, or people are only riding on trails and not the roads, because they perceive conditions to be much less safe than ten years ago.

In 1994, the US Department of Transportation adopted a policy of doubling the percentage of trips made by bicycling and walking while simultaneously reducing by ten percent the number of bicyclists and pedestrians injured in traffic crashes. The goals are to be pursued together - one cannot or should not be achieved at the expense of the other goal. Experience from many European countries suggests that increasing levels of bicycling can be done without increasing crash rates, and that strength in numbers can yield safety benefits.

Who is getting killed in bicycle crashes?
A detailed breakdown of the age, gender, and location of bicycle crash victims is available from the NHTSA and IIHS fact sheets listed under Crash Facts. Some of the more noteworthy trends or numbers are:
In 1990, the average age of bicyclists killed in traffic crashes was 28 years. By 2003, this had risen dramatically to nearly 36 years of age. Looking even further back, in 1975, 32 percent of bicycle deaths involved people aged 16 or older. In 2003, that figure was nearly 77 percent. So, the percentage of victims that are adults is climbing steadily – perhaps signifying that more adults are riding, or that fewer children are riding.

Approximately 47 percent of bicycle fatalities occur in just four states: California, Florida, New York and Texas. While these are among the most populous states, the figure is still remarkably high – the same states account for 29 percent of all traffic fatalities.
For more information on countermeasures for particular bicycle crash types, use the bicycle crash matrix at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/matrix in the bicycling crashes section.

[GlowBoy]

WTF says helmets weren't around back then? They were, and I was wearing them. Yes, the old Bell hardshells. I did lots of rec. road rides and occasionally rode to school when I was in high school in the early 80s, and you bet your butt I wore a helmet. But then again I come from a family that actually wore seatbelts back in the 70s. Some people care about stuff like that, some don't -- as evidenced by the driving and cycling behavior of those around me.

In some respects I think cycling is much safer than it was then, because there's more driver awareness - and facilities (oh boy, here come the VC flames). OTOH, in other ways the danger has increased the last few years because of increasing vehicle weights, heights(!), speeds and carelessness. BTW, if forced to choose I'd much rather get hit by a 3500 pound muscle car than by a taller 4500 pound Explorer -- or, God forbid the 5500 pound Tahoe that rammed me (while driving, causing injury) a couple of years ago. Or a 6500 pound Hummer, Excursion or Range Rover.

One safety stat I can quote you is that here in Portland cycling has tripled in the past decade (along with - ahem - facilities), while the number of accidents has held steady. Meaning the accident rate has fallen by 67%.

[randya]

One safety stat I can quote you is that here in Portland cycling has tripled in the past decade (along with - ahem - facilities), while the number of accidents has held steady. Meaning the accident rate has fallen by 67%.
This stat is inaccurate and deceptive. Over the last decade in Portland, the seriousness of an accident that results in a police report being filed has shifted steadily from 'required medical assistance' (early 90s) to 'taken to a level one trauma center' (today). Most crashes involving bicyclists these days, if the police show up at all, they just give you a standard DMV form to fill out and they're done with it. Lot's of crashes involving cyclists also simply go unreported. Cyclist fatalities are up this year in the Portland metro area, and a lot of them have been hit-and-run incidents. I lost at least one friend this year to a hit-and-run motorist.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

In Amsterdam I hear that you very seldom see bicyclists with special clothing or helmets, because it's just a normal activity.
The one time I saw such an apparition in a city in the Netherlands was in front of the Gouda VVV (tourist agency). A couple of American enthusiasts on a cycling trip. Otherwise I never saw it in 10 years of visits to the country.

The acceptance and practice of bicycling as a normal activity, done by normal people, wearing nortmal clothing is what made cycling in the Netherlands and Germany such a delightful experience for me.

[John E]

... Over the last decade in Portland, the seriousness of an accident that results in a police report being filed has shifted steadily from 'required medical assistance' (early 90s) to 'taken to a level one trauma center' (today). ...

Could this simply reflect defensive medicine and increasing standards of medical intervention? When I was struck by a motor vehicle 29 years ago, I don't think they even had designated trauma centers.

I feel, but cannot prove, that motorist inattention, distraction, and frustration levels have increased over the past 30 years, making cycling less safe. Couple this with risk compensation, with motorists feeling that they don't have to drive quite so carefully, because their six airbags and 5-star rated vehicle will protect them in a mishap.

I'll pass on the helmet discussion. For those of us who wear one strictly for safety, rather than any psychobabble reason, who fully appreciate its limitations, and who ride as though we weren't wearing it, no explanation is necessary. For everyone else, no explanation is possible.

[Nubie]

We don't wear protective gear when we do normal things.

Actually, we do. When I am going to do a procedure on someone, or do an autopsy, or go into the OR, we take "universal precautions" - masks, gowns, double-gloves, moon boot-type shoe covers, face masks that look like blast shields. In orthopedic surgeries, they wear astronaut type suits with individual ventilation and little fans inside to prevent exposure to bone dust and particles. An autopsy, a total hip replacement, these are normal things. A condom can be considered "protective gear", and I don't know what's more normal than sex. So we do wear appropriate protective gear for our normal things, just not necessarily helmets.

I did a stint at the Detroit Medical Examiner's office last year, and wrote a paper on my findings on "Common Injuries in Helmeted vs. Non-helmeted Fatal Motorycle Accidents in Wayne County, Michigan", and my findings were applicable to bicyclists. I found that in low-speed motorcycle accidents, helmets were in fact protective against many injuries, particularly those to the head and face. Those people who were helmeted but involved in a high-speed accidents died regardless. They had milder head/face injuries, but the injuries sustained by the rest of the body were not compatible with life. One guy was helmeted and decapitated himself on a wire. Another guy was helmeted but his heart was torn in half when he was dragged. Those without helmets were not-protected in either low or high speed accidents, and sustained severe injuries. Basically, helmets won't do jack for you in a high-speed collision except keep your brains from splattering all over the street. But in a low-speed impact, it can save your noggin from a lot of trouble.

I'm still tweaking my paper a bit, and then I'm going to try to get it published.

[Bekologist]

Genec tagged my feelings on drivers in post #4.

I don't think cycling as either more safe, or less safe, than 20 years ago. I was crashing into stuff and wiping out just as much, maybe more, then compared to now. Maybe its safer for me now, because I don't huck much anymore, but did fly into a guys windshield in august doing at least 30 mph, and I'm glad I was wearing my helmet. I don't really care what the driver thought about it, if he'd of rather had my brains all over his windshield instead of me shattering it in my helmeted flight...

I'm thankful helmets have gotten safer. I sure haven't.

[atbman]

Nibie's findings are echoed by Dr Mayer Hillman's research for the BMA (UK) He found that, in approx 92% of all cyclist fatalities which involved fatal head injuries, the cyclist would have died even if there had been no head injury.

Me, I wear a helmet because I came off on a diesel slipperied (invented new word) manhole cover and split head open (ok, 2 butterfly stitches, so slight exageration). Went out and bought oldfashioned hairnet (about '84) and upgraded eventually to more modern one. Don't expect it to save my life in a serious collision, but will probably prevent minor injuries from becoming more serious ones.

As for OP, I suspect a mix of reasons, including something like mine, fervent belief in their efficacy, social pressure, fear of insurance co. lawyers, or just to shut up spouses, parents, children, etc.

As for fashion, at 65, 20lb overweight and wearing unflatteringly figure hugging lycra, puhlease. Not to mention riding ancient rigid mtb

[atbman]

Sorry, Nubie, not Nibie

Type of graphical error

[Treespeed]

Basically, helmets won't do jack for you in a high-speed collision except keep your brains from splattering all over the street. But in a low-speed impact, it can save your noggin from a lot of trouble.

I'm still tweaking my paper a bit, and then I'm going to try to get it published.

That's all I'm hoping for, a reduction of injuries, especially to the head. I don't think anyone, despite the strawmen arguments put forth, believes that a helmet can protect them from all impacts it is like all things in life, a compromise. The best way to avoid bicycle related head injuries is to never ride a bike, since that isn't an option some of us choose to put something between our heads and the asphalt. I could still die from a bike related head injury, but I want it to be when a Mack Truck runs a red light and not when I forget to clip out and land headfirst.

-Marcus

[chipcom]

I seldom agree with your observations, BUT your theory about the source of the passion of the helmet zealots being something other than increased danger, sounds more than plausible to me.

I seldom agree with you as well, but in this case I do. Indeed, I had been wanting to ask you your views on helmets, since you have been riding as long or longer than I have. (no answer required here, just saying)

Thing is, I actually ordered a new helmet just last night. I have one of those expensive Giro's for charity rides that require a helmet, but the one I just ordered is a cheapie, cost me like 18 bucks at Walmart online. The only reason I ordered it is because it seems to be made of reflective material that the few reviews I read claimed to actually be visible from a fair distance. Reflectek I beleive it is called. For the single purpose of added visiblity this time of year when all of my commute is in darkness, it might have some value.

I haven't done more than scan the entire thread yet, but it looks to me like the OPs wish not to start the helmet debate anew is kind of moot already. Edit: or maybe not?

[genec]

I seldom agree with you as well, but in this case I do. Indeed, I had been wanting to ask you your views on helmets, since you have been riding as long or longer than I have. (no answer required here, just saying)

Thing is, I actually ordered a new helmet just last night. I have one of those expensive Giro's for charity rides that require a helmet, but the one I just ordered is a cheapie, cost me like 18 bucks at Walmart online. The only reason I ordered it is because it seems to be made of reflective material that the few reviews I read claimed to actually be visible from a fair distance. Reflectek I beleive it is called. For the single purpose of added visiblity this time of year when all of my commute is in darkness, it might have some value.

I haven't done more than scan the entire thread yet, but it looks to me like the OPs wish not to start the helmet debate anew is kind of moot already.


Now that sounds like a great idea... in the past I have been somewhat disappointed by any reflective gear sold... which usually consisted of little more some striping or piping that was supposed to do the trick. Now illuminite (http://www.illuminite.com/Catalog/cycling.html) clothing is available that makes the entire cyclist reflective thereby making it obvious that there is a human up ahead vice just something flashy.

BTW they have helmet covers too.

Now can I get pannier covers with the stuff?

[chipcom]

As a cyclist who has been commuting on and off for over 30 years, I have to say yes... cycling is more dangerous now then 25 years ago.

25 years ago there was less traffic, due to lower population densities, traffic was generally slower due to lower performace vehicles, and autos were smaller... SUVs did not exist and even large vehicles such as vans were not that prevalent.

Today the streets are crowded with vehicles that have been designed to use all 8.5 feet of allowable width, and speed limits have been pushed up to meet an adopted 85 percentile rule of traffic flow... which, since vehicles are higher performance, is typically faster then 25 years ago. Couple all that with better soundproofing and standard air conditioning and music systems and the motorist is not even likely to have their windows rolled down... thus is further separated from their operating environment.

To that picture add cellphones, in vehicle GPS navigation, CD players, and DVD players and we have a very crowded scene of fast large vehicles with very distracted drivers that is not the same as the picture some 25 years ago... many years before the words "Road Rage" were ever uttered.


Actually, I think it's a wash. No doubt traffic volume has increased dramatically over the last 40 years, and motorists are in a bigger hurry and less patient and well-mannered, as is our entire society. Those factors definitely make it 'feel' more dangerous, but is it? I don't think traffic overall has gotten any faster, again I think the sheer volume just makes it feel faster. The overall condition of the roads is cyclic, but there are more roads in better condition now than there were 40 years ago. More interstates help to keep the faster traffic out of the business and residential districts and there are definitely wider lanes and more bicycle specific facilities today than in the past. Yes, cell phones are a big distraction to drivers, but other aspects of driving ergonomics have improved, reducing distractions. Today, cyclists have much more visibility-related gear available to us, and motor vehicles can now stop faster, turn tighter and even provide better visiblity of the road in some cases.

So is it really more dangerous today, or does is just feel that way? I really don't know.

[GGDub]

Although this kinda straddles the "is cycling more dangerous?" and helmet debate I'll bring it up anyway. I was doing some research a couple of months ago about helmet usage and came across this:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

In Australia, after the introduction of helmet laws in 1993, bicycle accidents actually went up, although head injuries went down. So now the question, does that mean cycling in Australia became more or less dangerous?

[chipcom]

I dunno about that... Sure they weighed more, but with a 427 cu in, many could do a 1/4 mile in about 10 seconds - stock.

Mid 11's anyway. ;) Plus, they didn't handle or brake near as well as today's vehicles. I think the 'equipment' is safer today, but the volume of equipment on the road negates any benefit to us lil ole cyclists.

[chipcom]

Now that sounds like a great idea... in the past I have been somewhat disappointed by any reflective gear sold... which usually consisted of little more some striping or piping that was supposed to do the trick. Now illuminite (http://www.illuminite.com/Catalog/cycling.html) clothing is available that makes the entire cyclist reflective thereby making it obvious that there is a human up ahead vice just something flashy.

BTW they have helmet covers too.

Now can I get pannier covers with the stuff?

I haven't been impressed with illuminite. I have a jacket and the helmet cover. While they are more reflective than regular clothing, they are not nearly as reflective as a piece of decent reflective tape. But, every little bit counts I guess.

[genec]

Actually, I think it's a wash. No doubt traffic volume has increased dramatically over the last 40 years, and motorists are in a bigger hurry and less patient and well-mannered, as is our entire society. Those factors definitely make it 'feel' more dangerous, but is it? I don't think traffic overall has gotten any faster, again I think the sheer volume just makes it feel faster. The overall condition of the roads is cyclic, but there are more roads in better condition now than there were 40 years ago. More interstates help to keep the faster traffic out of the business and residential districts and there are definitely wider lanes and more bicycle specific facilities today than in the past. Yes, cell phones are a big distraction to drivers, but other aspects of driving ergonomics have improved, reducing distractions. Today, cyclists have much more visibility-related gear available to us, and motor vehicles can now stop faster, turn tighter and even provide better visiblity of the road in some cases.

So is it really more dangerous today, or does is just feel that way? I really don't know.


Well I know for a fact that roads are faster... speed limits on the same roads I biked in the late 70s have gone up... and locally one road that I use has gone full circle. At one time it was a lonely old freeway, with a speed limit of 65MPH... and at that time cyclists were allowed to ride on a military air base to parallel the freeway. Then a new better wider freeway was built and the old freeway entrances and exits were rerouted and it became a surface street marked at 45MPH... about the same time cyclists were no longer allowed to use the road on the military base. Now that road is again marked at 65MPH and two cyclists have been killed on it in as many years.

Right near my house a road that was 35MPH was just changed to 45MPH with hugh new signs. No improvement was made to the road itself.

These increased speeds alone are cause for concern.

Every road I take when I commute has a speed equal to or greater than 45MPH.

Now as far as road condition in general... and granted this is a very local issue... San Diego has faced a budget crisis for some time and one of the "defered maintenance" issues has been roadwork... around here pot holes, cracks and buckling pavement is the norm... not the exception.

Couple all that with the acknowledged increased traffic density... and brother, we have problems.

[genec]

I haven't been impressed with illuminite. I have a jacket and the helmet cover. While they are more reflective than regular clothing, they are not nearly as reflective as a piece of decent reflective tape. But, every little bit counts I guess.


Interesting... thanks for the info. I have in the past used just plain old reflective tape available at any auto store for "decorating" my helmets. Guess I can save a few bucks and just keep at it.

[huhenio]

It does not matter if it is more dangerous now than before, it is dangerous and we chose to live with it.

[GGDub]

It does not matter if it is more dangerous now than before, it is dangerous and we chose to live with it.

amen brutha

[genec]

It does not matter if it is more dangerous now than before, it is dangerous and we chose to live with it.

Too true!

Funny side note: years ago I was being screened for life insurance, and they had reservations about my SCUBA diving, but none about my cycle commuting.... guess it just isn't "dangerous," eh?