Culture of Fear

[closetbiker]

Always perplexed at others (non-cyclists mostly) mentioning to me how dangerous cycling is, so I've kept track of things I've read that disprove such notions. I recently read "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. In the introduction, he lays out his theory, which is,

"Mary Douglas, the eminent anthropologist who devoted much of her career to studying how people interpret risk, pointed out that every society has an almost infinite quantity of potential dangers from which to choose. Societies differ both in the types of dangers they select and the number. Dangers get selected for special emphasis, Douglas showed, either because they offend the basic moral principles of the society or because they enable criticism of disliked groups and institutions.

Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love. They don't teach that in Sunday school, but it's true."

The short answer to why Americans harbor so many misbegotten fears is that immense power and money await those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with symbolic substitutes. "

At the conclusion he adds,

"Statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts are two telltale tricks of the fear mongers' trade.

Other tricks are:

* the use of poignant anecdotes in place of scientific evidence,

*the christening of isolated incidents as trends,

*depictions of entire categories of people as innately dangerous.

The success of a scare depends not only on how well it is expressed but also, as I have tried to suggest, on how well it expresses deeper cultural anxieties. "

This all adds up for me in relation to as why (as I see it) cycling seems to get treatment at a lower level than other road users. I beleive, in general, that we are a disliked group to motorists and there is a monetary incentive to try to keep us in cars as much as possible. I think that discriminating towards cyclists is a substitute to handling the real problems of motor vehicles and it is also a way of giving others an excuse as to why they don't ride bikes to get the exercise that we all need - "it's too dangerous!"

The British Medical Association has said the benefits of riding a bike outweigh the risks by a ratio of 20 to 1.

The American Medical Association concluded: "Even after adjustment for other risk factors, including leisure time physical activity, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did."

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death for heart disease is 1 in 397, a motor vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and for a bicycle acident is 1 in 376,165.

I'm sticking with my therory that cycling is a good, and not a dangerous, thing.



:beer:

[closetbiker]

So, am I ready for the looney bin yet?

[Kevin S]

Some people might say that BF is the loony bin. Imagine, saying that cycling is safe. :)

[bac]

Originally posted by closetbiker
The American Medical Association concluded: "Even after adjustment for other risk factors, including leisure time physical activity, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did."

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis says the risk of death for heart disease is 1 in 397, a motor vehicle accident is 1 in 6745, and for a bicycle acident is 1 in 376,165.

I'm sticking with my therory that cycling is a good, and not a dangerous, thing.

:beer:

Yup, when one examines the facts, the numbers speak for themselves. The excuse/addage that cycling is dangerous reminds me of people who won't fly in an airplane.

The facts tell one that there is a much greater chance of meeting one's maker in a car on the way to the airport, than on the flight itself. However, try and explain this to someone who won't fly. They simply refuse to understand the facts. :confused:

[MichaelW]

People are often afraid to fly because they fear that the wings will drop off. That is quite obviously nonsense. No, they really should be afraid in case the fusalage falls off the wings.

[hayneda]

I agree with this explanation. I do believe that cyclists are generally looked on with disapproval simply because we occasionally delay motorists for a few moments. Having personally witnessed the wrath that some exhibit while driving and delayed by a tractor or other slow moving vehicle, I think this is the root of why we are such a dispised group.

Dave

[closetbiker]

I don't mean to open up the helmet issue, but, in regards to the discriminatory way authorities deal with cyclists, I emailed the provincial Brain Injury Association after I read a letter in the paper where the Ass. endorsed a local helmet by law for cyclists and I said:

I read your letter and visited your website. On the home page I noticed:

Did You Know?

* Brain Injury is the #1 killer and disabler of people under 45.
Prevention is the only cure.

and on brain injury facts I noticed:

# Motor vehicle accidents account for the overwhelming majority of deaths and disability by unintentional injury.

# Research indicates that as many as 9 out of 10 unintentional injuries can be prevented.


I was wondering how the Brain Injury Association is working to try to prevent brain injury in motor vehicles?

They replied:

We advocate for safe driving practices (obeying speed limits, observing road conditions, no drinking and driving etc.)

This seems a reasonable response for saving drivers. Their message for cyclists was not to ride safer but to wear a helmet.

I was pushing the buttons of John Ratliff on the Helmets Harmful post by bringing up Dr. Atkins fall and subsequent head injury. Beats Walking replied, "was Dr. Atkins wearing winter footwear that takes into account walking on ice? Or was he just wearing some wingtips that he'd be walking in all day at the office? I'm not saying the winter shoes/boots/whatever would've stopped him from falling and hitting his head, but they would've been a lot better than shoes you slip and slide around in on a slightly waxed floor. " Another good response. It makes sense and is not discriminatory to adjust the behavior that leads to problems rather than use statements of alarm by newscasters and glorification of wannabe experts, or use poignant anecdotes in place of scientific evidence, the christening of isolated incidents as trends, depictions of entire categories of people as innately dangerous.

[closetbiker]

..and to enforce my intention that I do not want to offend anyone with might be construed as an anti-helmet post (it's really a rant against poor risk adversion policy) I'll strap on a helmet to deflect the expected stones thrown my way to avoid getting a head injury!

:D

[uciflylow]

It's funny how some people view guns the same way! If you have one you are bound to shoot yourself or someone else sooner or later.;)

[wabbit]

You're probably more likely to get head injury in a car accident, that is driving a car. It's not like we wear helmets in a car.

I was recently at a physio and I mentioned that I'd had recurring pain from an injury, due to a bike accident last fall. SHe said, "Maybe you should do a sport less dangerous!" Like what? Like runners or hockey players don't get injured? Or perhaps, sit at home and get no exercise at all? You won't get injured that's for sure.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by wabbit
Or perhaps, sit at home and get no exercise at all? You won't get injured that's for sure.

From The book of risks by Larry Laudan,

Ponder this; hundreds of thousands of Americans are injured each year on their beds and another hundred thousand or so are injured by the clothing seriously enough to require emergency medical treatment. Anxiety about risks of life is a bit like hypochondria. In both, the fear or anxiety feeds on partial information.

[hayneda]

Originally posted by wabbit
Or perhaps, sit at home and get no exercise at all? You won't get injured that's for sure.

I think I'd rather assume the risks of a fatal crash while riding a bike than those of heart disease from riding the couch.

Dave

[John E]

Couch potatoes invoke the safety issue to rationalize their inactivity and to justify their overreliance on motor vehicles. "Well, going to a store two miles away takes an hour on foot; that's too far to walk." (I just returned from a 4.5mile/7km round trip bike ride to return a rented DVD. I also jog that distance every weekday as part of my commute.)

[Inoplanetyanin]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Always perplexed at others (non-cyclists mostly) mentioning to me how dangerous cycling is, so I've kept track of things I've read that disprove such notions. I recently read "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. In the introduction, he lays out his theory, which is,
....


:beer:


Cycling is more dangerous than sitting at home and not cycling. It is also more dangerous, than driving an automobile - if compared on the same road.
How can it be less dangerous than driving a car? According to your statistics...

Cyclist is less noticable, if hit - cyclist had GREAT chanes of fatalality, number of vehicles passing a cyclist is much greater than those passing a car.

Bicycle routes are rare in most of the cities...
Cycling is dangerous, but so is life in general... Weh are risking by living...

Be safe!

[Inoplanetyanin]

I definitely FOR the helmets. Was looking at one today. Kind of expensive... $90, will try to shop some more.
I bought a new motorcycle helmet for $75 two years ago...
By the way, the helmet will be of bright color... yellow or white, which will also help to reflect sun's heat vawes.

What color of helmets do you guys have? Anyone careying of matching the helmet with the color of the bicycle?


Best Regards.

[froze]

That's why I get so tired of hearing about one person who is shot while riding their bike and left for dead and on and on and on; and this crap gets posted on these forums and everyone is suddenly afraid it's going to happen to them! America has brainwashed us into thinking constantly about various fear issues and mandate requirements upon us to force us to fear ourselves. When I was a kid the cold war was going on and in grade school we use to have nuclear blast drills where we all would get under our desk bend over and put our hands over our heads. The part they left out was we were suppose to kiss our ass goodbye because surviving a nuclear war would have been virtually impossible. But seriously, what a thing to do to a bunch of grade schoolers! Now instead of a nuclear holocast its terrorism, or cars with air bags blowing at us from all directions, or gee someone in China got SARS and now 150 people have died...suddenly the news makes it sound like the whole world will be dead in 3 months! Good grief, the black plague during the 1700's killed many many more than that, why heck 150 is nothing, cancer deaths make SARS look like a hiccup on a daily basis, more people died of the flu around the world than by SARS this year. I could go on but this message would be too long on this subject.

Stop living in fear and stop listening to all the media crap and start enjoying life.

So is cycling dangerous? maybe for the moroon who does not obey the rules of the road but for most people no way; no more than walking down a sidewalk. I agree with Hayneda, I would rather risk death on a bicycle than sit at home and be safe only to risk death from heart disease.

[JDP]

Originally posted by hayneda
I think I'd rather assume the risks of a fatal crash while riding a bike than those of heart disease from riding the couch.

Dave

I agree. My Dad's parents both died in their 60's from heart disease. My Dad, in his 60's now, has already had a heart attack. Fortunately it was mild but he doesn't lead a sedentary lifestyle. In my case, sitting on the couch is much more dangerous and a crappy way to go.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
Cycling is more dangerous than sitting at home and not cycling. It is also more dangerous, than driving an automobile - if compared on the same road.
How can it be less dangerous than driving a car?

Everyone can have their own opinion, but some opinions have the weight of sound reasoning and judgement.

So, should I take Inoplanetyanin's judgement more seriously or, the BMA's, the AMA's, or Harvard's judgements?

Simple choice!
:D

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by froze
That's why I get so tired of hearing about one person who is shot while riding their bike and left for dead and on and on and on; and this crap gets posted on these forums and everyone is suddenly afraid it's going to happen to them!

I liken this to the "I'm going to win the lottery" argument. As long as the winner is in the public's eye, someone is going to place themselves in the winners position, no matter how great the odds are that it won't happen. Everyone thinks they're going to be a star, or win that money. Very few do.

[Pete Clark]

Statistically,

One hour of driving carries almost twice the risk of death as one hour of cycling.

One hour of driving carries you almost twice as far.

So...

...cycling and driving to work have about the same risk of death, generally speaking.

But when you throw in fitness...

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
Cycling is more dangerous than sitting at home and not cycling.
Sitting and not doing anything is very dangerous indeed...

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
But when you throw in fitness...

Health Canada says, estimated deaths:

for cardiovascular disease,

79,389

for car accidents,

2,900,

for cyclists,

70.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Always perplexed at others (non-cyclists mostly) mentioning to me how dangerous cycling is...

I'm sticking with my therory that cycling is a good, and not a dangerous, thing.

:beer:
Oh, come on!

People do whatever they want to, whether it's dangerous or not.
They drive, don't they?

Do you hear people saying, "Gee, I'm afraid I'll get in an accident if I drive over to the corner store to rent a video!" Naw, never.

The people who harp on how dangerous cycling is (though statistically, it's not, and they never do it themselves anyway) will do any number of other more dangerous things. If it's dangerous, people want to do it even more and will pay big bucks for the opportunity, then thrill coworkers with the story on Monday.

If they can't do something thrill-seeking, they will raise their blood pressure by watching something dangerous on t.v.

I'd rather die on my bike than sitting on the couch, watching someone disarm a nuclear bomb that's ticking away.

Don't forget, Monday morning, most people will be out there, listening to their favorite radio show while 80 mph traffic weaves around them, and they will continue to do this every day, day in, day out...

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Oh, come on! People do whatever they want to, whether it's dangerous or not.
They drive, don't they?

Yes, but why are they afraid of some things and not others?

West Nile, SARS, child abductions and cyclists are perceived as real threats. Blows me away.

I feel better after reading the book though. It's either, a) because they offend the basic moral principles of the society or, b) or because they enable criticism of disliked groups and institutions. and c) power and money await those who tap into our moral insecurities and supply us with symbolic substitutes.

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Yes, but why are they afraid of some things and not others?

... snipping

Why, you ask? You can lay much of that blame on the news media ... spewers of fear and all that is wrong with this world. If not for the news media, would the world that you live in seem as scarey?

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
You can lay much of that blame on the news media ...

True, but the news media has also printed good quality, balanced reporting on issues as well. The focus goes to what people want to buy.

Aircraft incidents are able to be sold because we have an innate sense of distrust of government regulations to protect the public.

Child abduction of strangers get coverage because we're feeling guilty for not devoting the kind of attention on our children that they need.

Trying to get cyclists off the road is a lame way of dealing with poor drivers that hit them.

[Pete Clark]

Sorry, Closetbiker. I didn't mean to appear to be contrary.

I really agree with you so totally on so many issues, that I just had to say, "Oh, come on!"

(Right now watching Richard Burton in 1984--Orwell.)

[closetbiker]

Ummm..., O.K.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
Cycling is more dangerous than sitting at home and not cycling. It is also more dangerous, than driving an automobile - if compared on the same road.
How can it be less dangerous than driving a car? According to your statistics...

Simply because the majority of crashes/accidents that arise from either cycling or driving don't involve collisions with the other. They are simply falling off or running into things. Generally speaking, you'll be doing that slower if you're on a bike, so you won't hit them as hard (additionally, you'll have more chance to avoid the collision to begin with).

For some reason, people forget this because of biased and just plain inaccurate media coverage (I am now of the opinion that I am better informed about life in general if I don't read newspapers or watch the news) where one bicycling death gets the same coverage as 100 car deaths, we get all this scaremongering.

[Pete Clark]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Ummm..., O.K.
Ok, I'll shut up.

;)

[Feltup]

I think that we(bikers) make them(drivers) mad because we slow them down. They know they are going to die sooner than us so they resent us for taking up any of there time. They look at us pedaling along at 18 mph and think, "don't they have a car?" or, "don't they have anything better to do?". I pedal to work everyday and everyday the same guy tells me how I am going to get killed riding in traffic. There is another guy that just can not understand why I would ride a bike if I had a car. He is really sincere in his question,"Why?".

I believe in God, I also believe he is in control of EVERYTHING. When he wants me to go I am going. I can do things that might create more risk in my life but biking isn't one of them.

[temp1]

I think as life expectancy and our ability to sustain life in the face of disease and injury through advanced care increases we deny death more and more and any percived risk becomes more dangerous in our minds. We all live with an illusion of safety, when somone is killed on a bike people are reminded that we are not promised that there will be a tomarrow, and there is an attitude that death is unfair if it happens before we grow old. Death can happen at any moment from infinant causes, the world is not safe, and people should get more used to that idea.

[Geraldo]

Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die.

:beer:

[closetbiker]

New info!

Macleans Magazine (a Canadian icon) cover story this week is "THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE BAD NEWS - SARS, West Nile, Mad Cow--yes, it's tough out there, but we're making progress."

found @http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003/06/09/Cover/60649.shtml

Our range of terrors is as boundless as our imagination. Some, like the
abhorrence of snakes, spiders, or heights, are seemingly innate and
almost universal. Others are learned and absorbed from the pain we
see and share, shaped by our individual experiences and brushes with
mortality. Fear is the primal human emotion.
Given the central role that worry plays in our lives, the odd thing is how
poor a job we do in assessing the risks that most of us actually face on
a day-to-day basis. We obsess about remote dangers and are morbidly
fascinated with gruesome ends, ignoring the mundane hazards that
claim the most victims. "We're more afraid of shark attacks than heart
attacks and statistically that's wrong," says David Ropeik, director of risk
communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. "The more awful the manner of death, the more likely we are to be afraid
of it," says Ropeik. "But it leads us to make statistically riskier choices --
to drive instead of fly, to buy guns for personal protection, to take
powerful antibiotics when we don't really need them." The flip side of the
phenomenon is the whole range of potentially fatal hazards we should
be worried about but downplay, says Ropeik, like the flu, medical errors,
skin cancer and traffic accidents.

"It may seem irrational, and sometimes it is, but risk
drives us." And even if we aren't aware of it, our minds are already
turning to fresh dangers, scanning for the next hurdle to overcome.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? from:http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003/06/09/Cover/60651.shtml

6 people died from a fall on the "same level involving ice and snow"
236 died from falls on or from stairs or steps
62 died from a fall involving a bed (and 9 from accidentally suffocating or
strangulating in bed)
39 died from falling on or from ladders
21 died from a fall involving chairs or other furniture
15 died from falling off cliffs

So that's 379 people who dies from falls around the house versus 70 cyclists who died. 83 died from falls from household furniture.

Who should wear a helmet?

[mechBgon]

I've been a careful driver of both my cars and my bicycles, and unfortunately my own stats are definitely reflecting an increased risk of collision and injury when driving the bicycles.

Autos are not the only hazard either. In 1994 I was hit head-on by another bicyclist who was descending faster than he could stop, and it totalled my bike and sent me to the hospital in an ambulance (despite both of us having helmets on).

And then there's the risk of simply crashing my brains out with no outside assistance :) I've found several ways of doing this, on-road or off ;)

I'm not trying to say that cycling is horrendously dangerous in absolute terms, compared to other athletic pursuits, but I don't feel that I'm safer on my Cannondale than I am when strapped inside 3000 pounds of Oldsmobile station wagon.

[John C. Ratliff]

Hi Closetbiker,

'Decided to discuss this with you because I think your basic tenant is correct, we are in a culture of fear, and I have rejected that notion for quite some time. I'll discuss the culture of fear aspect in a bit (on a new post), but will comment on something else--the helmet thing.

I have engaged in a number of activities, and always wear what is appropriate for that activity, be it parachuting, mountaineering, scuba diving, gardening and bicycling. I do and have worn helmets in most of these activities, excluding gardening (where I do wear old clothes, gloves, eye protection, and sometimes a respirator for insectacides, etc.). I think that we need to separate the helmet thing from the culture of fear, because they really are separate issues. I'll discuss in a while my perspectives on the culture of fear in the United States, and thanks for the reference in your first post. I'll probably be picking it up.

John

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
Hi Closetbiker,

I think that we need to separate the helmet thing from the culture of fear, because they really are separate issues.
John

Hi John! :)

I think they're intertwined in North America. I think they're separate issues in Europe and Asia.

Here, we fear cycling and gear up, there they don't fear and don't were 'em!


:D

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by closetbiker
Hi John! :)

I think they're intertwined in North America. I think they're separate issues in Europe and Asia.

Here, we fear cycling and gear up, there they don't fear and don't were 'em!


:D Friend, I would probably be dead now if I hadn't made a habit of wearing my helmet :) Maybe it's a "Culture of Common Sense" to a certain extent... that thing inside is fragile! ;)

(and besides, without my helmet, where would I put my 3rd Eye mirror? ;))

[John C. Ratliff]

I would be dead, according to my trauma doc, if it weren't for my helmet (now in more than ten pieces) for just over a year now, but it is a different issue than what I want to discuss about the "culture of fear."

If you watch much TV, read much news, or listen to the radio talk shows, most of what is discussed is on a level of fear. I turned to the "Living" section of todays newspaper, and it discussed skin cancer and sun screen. The news is filled with "news," which now is defined is "bad news." We, as a society in America (I cannot talk for other societies), are pretty much "hooked" on fear as a motivating, or as a selling, force. This is why I say that the helmet issue is really a very small subset of the "culture of fear" situation in America.

Closetbiker, in promoting helmets for cars on another thread, was unwittingly wrapping into the culture of fear by simply displacing it from bicycles to cars, or to walking. I know that some of that was tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time it came across as serious.

I work in the safety profession, and have had a long, uphill battle against the concept that "unsafe acts" and "unsafe conditions" are the cause of accidents. This concept has permiated our culture, and is very difficult to get away from. More thoughtful theorists choose a "human error" accident model, which is multi-causative in nature. But simplistic models of accidents based mainly on these "unsafe acts" are at the center of most safety person's thoughts. This focuses on accidents themselves, and on the statistics behind them, with arguments about what the best remedy would be. Much of that is based upon fear; it can be fear of being injured, or fear of injuring someone else.

Many years ago, high school students were shown films of actual accidents with dead, bloody, dismembered people prominently displayed; later research showed that this approach to accident prevention did not work. It did not work because fear as a motivating factor was deflected--"it can happen, but not to me." This attitude occurs because we cannot imagine ourselves as being there, being seriously injured and/or dying.

Just as kids who drive cars cannot imagine this, neither can most bicyclists. So when we talk about safety, we do need (and I think Closetbiker would agree) a comprehensive approach that involves not just helmets, but all the reasons for the types behaviors that would allow for safe cycling.

There is a whole different approach in the safety profession called "behavior-based safety." These people preach that each behavior has a consequence, and that consequence can be either positive or negative. We many times disregard the negative consequenses (mental block, or active blocking them out). So it is positive consequences that motivate people. If we want to make a change in behavior, there must be positive, reinforcing consequences in order for that change to occur.

But this concept is contradictory to the "culture of fear" that we have in this country. That culture of fear says that we change behavior by showing the bad, negative things that happen, and then emploring people to change their behavior. But it won't happen.

Let's take a speeding driver. He speeds on the road like it was a freeway, cuts around corners, narrowly misses a bicyclist or pedestrian, and continues on. Perhaps a policeman sees him, and pulls him over, gives a ticket, and lets the person go. Well, guess what. That person is no less likely to go "zoom-zoom" as the kid in the ad says, because of that ticket. The positive reinforcements for this behavior have greatly outweighed the negatives, and this person (whom I will say is a "he") will continue this until something happens (which it usually doesn't) and his driver's license is revolked. It will probably also continue again when he again gets his drivers license (or when he drives without it). If you've seen the Dodge commercial of the three racecar drivers going home, you'll know what I mean.

So, how do we gain some sanity to this situation. We need to build the positives into the message of slowing down in driving. We also need to build the positives into the use of helmets, the use of good riding techniques, use of gloves for riding, etc. Even though the "culture of fear" is very prevalent, it does not work as a motivating factor for people.

John

[mechBgon]

John, forgive me for being a little confused at your post, but isn't staying alive a "positive" in its own right?

Or are you saying people are so dense that they cannot imagine their helmet/seat belt/safety glasses ever being needed, and need some other type of motivator to use them, beyond the obvious safety benefit? Because I can't see a whole lot of other motivation for using safety equipment. "Wear your safety glasses when using the rotary tool, they'll attract chicks" Uhhh, no ;) Maybe this is natural selection at work... hehe....

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
I would be dead, according to my trauma doc, if it weren't for my helmet (now in more than ten pieces) for just over a year now,

John, I'm happy things turned out well for you, but these claims sometimes are hard to hear because they are so subjective in nature. Here's a rebuttal I read once,

"Unfortunately, without analysis of the helmet damage by a very well-equipped forensic lab, these assertions are not substantiated. In fact, they are no more automatically credible than the equally sincere protestations of those who credit their lucky rabbit's foot, angelic intervention, prayer, psychic foreknowledge, or other unverifiable causes with their survival of some traumatic event. The anecdotal testimony of this extraordinarily accident-prone group of cyclists is no more conclusive than my own "charmed life". I therefore dismiss this type of "Jesus healed me" evidence and would prefer to stick strictly to the published literature and statistics. "


Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
but it is a different issue than what I want to discuss about the "culture of fear."

Well that's good because the book really is a good explanation as to why we fear some things instead of others that may be even more dangerous than what we fear. It's been happening as long as man has been around and I believe the best way to handle fear is to understand it.

I agree with your point about human error leading to problems more than unsafe acts or conditions. Behavior-based safety seems to me, to be the way to go!

The new info that was published in Macleans this week spoke of this fear,

("We're more afraid of shark attacks than heart attacks and statistically that's wrong... it leads us to make statistically riskier choices... The flip side of the
phenomenon is the whole range of potentially fatal hazards we should
be worried about but downplay, says Ropeik, like the flu and traffic accidents.)

and with the inclusion of, What are the chances? I thought it fit in.

I just love the fact that more people die from falling from beds or chairs than die from cycling. (I already had posted about the dangers of walking and climbing stairs and ladders) It puts things into perspective.

:)

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by closetbiker


I just love the fact that more people die from falling from beds or chairs than die from cycling. (I already had posted about the dangers of walking and climbing stairs and ladders) It puts things into perspective.

:) The simple fact is, cycling isn't an everyday activity for most of the people in my area. Walking, using ladders, climbing stairs, and using chairs or beds are something that they do more frequently than cycling, so the odds are naturally stacked in cycling's favor if you look at the number of deaths in absolute terms :)

As for myself, I suffered a deep concussion despite hitting another helmeted rider head-to-head at a closing speed approaching 30mph/50kph. It seems logical that I would be dead or permanently brain-injured without my helmet, but if such logical conclusions are not satisfactory, you may discount that :)

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by mechBgon
The simple fact is, cycling isn't an everyday activity for most of the people in my area.

I'd say it would be highly unusual to find someone who hasn't been astride a bicycle. The matter of how much and how long they were riding a bike, pale in comparison to what they were doing when an accident occured.

Originally posted by mechBgon
As for myself, I suffered a deep concussion despite hitting another helmeted rider head-to-head at a closing speed approaching 30mph/50kph. It seems logical that I would be dead or permanently brain-injured without my helmet, but if such logical conclusions are not satisfactory, you may discount that :)

I had the exact same circumstance. The fact is, that if the bozo who was riding on the wrong side of the road, in the dark with no light, rode properly, the incident wouldn't have occured in the first place.

It seems to me the best way to prevent any injuries is from prevention of the incident that leads to injuries.

The first issue that came up after the accident was "Are they wearing helmets?" not why Mr. Bozo was riding on the wrong side of the street. And no, neither of us were wearing them, we hit at an estimated combined 50 kmh. (I know I was going 35 kmh, I guess he was going 15 kmh) He was stopped dead while I flew about 10 meters, and the results were a bent wheel, fork , frame and derailer and a dirty coat, gloves and slightly torn tights. I didn't much care for the condition of Mr. Bozo. He seemed to survive. It looked like he just had the wind knocked out of him. No head injuries that everyone seems to say are guaranteed to happen. This is the fear, not the reality.

I bought a new fork, rebuilt my wheel and straightened my frame (ah, the blessings of steel), stitched up the tights and continued on.

[John C. Ratliff]

MechBgon stated:

John, forgive me for being a little confused at your post, but isn't staying alive a "positive" in its own right?

Actually, while it is a positive, behavioral safety discusses things in terms of behaviors and the consequences of a given behavior. The consequences can either be positive or negative, can happen sooner or later, and can be certain or uncertain. We tend to be reinforced by things that are perceived by the person to be positive, certain and soon. We tend not to be reinforced by things that are perceived to be negative, uncertain and happen later.

Using this model, we can then evaluate the idea about helmets. If we wear a helmet to come back healthy each time after a fall, then we are in a position of creating a positive effect. Each time we came back from a fall, intact, it is reinforced that it is good to wear a helmet. But if, like Closetbiker, we are not wearing a helmet, and fall but don't hit our head, then there is no reinforcement of this behavior (to wear a helmet). Quite the opposite effect occurs (as is shown by his posts above).

If we promote helmet usage as a preventive for head injuries for a bunch of kids, and they ride without falling, or fall and don't hit their head, we have a situation where the consequences of wearing the helmet is uncertain, occurs later (if at all) and can be perceived as a negative by the child (too much bother, too hot, not "cool," etc.). This is part of the problem with the current scheme of promoting helmets.

For instance, it took me about 40 years, and many spills, before the helmet gave me a positive consequence (although I did hit my head in the sixth grade, it was before helmets were even available; that was also my first migraine headache).

Closetbiker, I do feel that my doctor's opinion that the helmet saved my life in last year's accident is justified in this case. He saw the injury, saw me unconscious for an hour, took the CAT scan, saw the helmet shattered into ten or more pieces (with deeply indented foam), and made the judgement that I would not be here without it. This judgement was not subjective on his part, but the result of direct observation, measurement of brain activity, and observation of the crushed portion of the helmet.

If we promote helmet usage as being "cool," with the superstars of the sport using them routinely, we stand a better chance of influencing bicyclists (and especially kids) behavior in favor of using helmets. They should have decorative colors that stand out and provide visibility each time they are used. The helmet designs need not only to function to keep a head intact during a crash, but also have have practical value each time they are used (as a platform for mirrors for instance). For us older folks, with less hair, some helmets will prevent sunburn each time they are used in the sun or summer (even cloudy days can have an effect on the skin). These are ways we can give helmets the positive, immediate and certain consequences that will reinforce helmet usage.

Writing tickets for lack of a helmet doesn't provide those positive, immediate consequences though (helmet laws). This can create an immediate, though negative, effect if it is not handled correctly. I saw a police officer handle it better. He:

--wrote the ticket while calling the child's parents.
--would not let the child ride the bicycle without the helmet.
--released the child to the parent after the parent had come to the sidewalk to get the child.
--advised the parent to ensure the child wore a helmet the next time he rode.
--educated both the child and the parent on the need for the helmet as an injury-prevention piece of equipment.
--told the parent that, instead of paying the ticket, he could use that money to buy a helmet and return the ticket with the receit for the helmet (some places also give helmets away, especially hospitals).

This provided both the child, and the child's parents immediate, positive and certain reinforcement of the need for a helmet. A year or so later, our paper ran an article about a child who fell off a bicycle, into the path of a car with a helmet on. The front, right wheel of the car came to rest on the helmet, trapping it. The child was uninjured.

Getting again back to the "culture of fear," we need to discuss bicycling as a positive activity, that has real, immediate and certain results. Helmets are a small part of this, and we need to frame promotion of bicycling as a...

--quick, easy method of replacing the auto for short trips and commutes,

--handier and less expensive than the auto alternative,

--positive contribution to our selves (health wise: less obesity, less diabetes, less coronary artery disease, greater fitness, greater endurance, more enjoyment of simply things like hiking, walking and activities associated with bicycling),

--positive contribution to our community (less congestion on the roads, better access with bicycle lanes and trails to shopping),

--positive contribution to our nation (less dependence on oil),

--and a positive contribution to our environment (less pollution cause by buring of fossil fuels, decreasing potential for global warming, fewer animals killed by autos, and less waste produced).

This needs to be done in the media, and it is not happening. More on the media later, but this is a major reason bicycling is not as popular as it could be, and remains an area ripe for greater improvement.

John

[mechBgon]

Wow, great stuff John :)

I was invited to help fit helmets at a helmet giveaway targeting children, and that was interesting. The helmets were white, and not particularly great in the eyes of an enthusiast. We did a very conscientious job of sizing and fitting them so they would maintain proper position and not come off in an impact. This was sponsored by the Kiwanas Club, and I think there were something like 600 to 1000 helmets given away.

The interesting part is this: the kids, whose ages ranged from about 4 to 12, were provided with tables loaded with colored permanent markers, and they took surprising enthusiasm in decorating their new helmets with all sorts of stuff. Maybe this is an example of positive reinforcement; they like their custom helmet and feel rewarded by wearing it (as long as no one starts mocking their choice of decoration or something).

As you say, the helmet as an accessory platform has some merit. Let's see... brainstorm time:

mirrors
LED rear flashers or electroluminescent strips
maybe LED headlights?
visors
eye shields
solar-powered integrated DC-powered cooling fans
heck, solar-powered cell-phone charger while we're at it :)
heads-up computer readout (just think about the utility of having a Campagnolo ErgoBrain or Shimano FlightDeck readout showing how many cogs you've got left, or an altimiter/thermometer/speed readout! :))

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
...behavioral safety discusses things in terms of behaviors and the consequences. We tend not to be reinforced by things that are perceived to be negative...

Ah, but I tend to believe Nixon when he says, people react to fear. The example of our recent experience with SARS displays this quite well.

Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
we need to discuss bicycling as a positive activity, that has real, immediate and certain results...This needs to be done in the media, and it is not happening.

I have found many positive stories on cycling in the media as well as the negative ones. Maybe the best way to promote cycling and it's positive results would be to reduce the fear of them. We are a disliked group and some make profits from keeping us off bikes and into cars. Auto companies and their supporting enterprises (like the media that gets much revenue from them) profit. The benefits of cycling help the bottom line of many different enterprises (like cheaper health care costs, more efficient use of land and roads, and of course, all those bike shops :) ) and they need to better coordinate their efforts if they want to profit.

If we managed to get more riding, our interests would be better understood (through participation) and better served. We need to look towards areas that have developed significant levels of utlitarian cycling and follow their example to shed the fear of cycling.

[closetbiker]

If we dispell the fear of cycling, our bike parking lots will look more like they do elsewhere were there is little fear of cycling, well used!

:D

[John C. Ratliff]

I saw a book at the University of Washington Book Store yesterday, and it had hundreds of items that we should be afraid of. The only problem is that some of the information was not correct. For instance, it stated that the windows in card do not remove the UV-A light from hitting us. But I've measured, and all UV-B is removed; I presume that UV-A is also removed because a person cannot tan under a window, be it a car window or other window. So really, sometimes people are simply trying to make us afraid of our environment.

The same holds true for cycling. Some are out to make it a "scary" subject.

John

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by closetbiker
If we dispell the fear of cycling, our bike parking lots will look more like they do elsewhere were there is little fear of cycling, well used!

:D

Hmm .. that doesn't look very appealing.

[nathank]

posted by John

We, as a society in America (I cannot talk for other societies), are pretty much "hooked" on fear as a motivating, or as a selling, force. This is why I say that the helmet issue is really a very small subset of the "culture of fear" situation in America.

well, some time about 5 years or so age i really noticed the CULTURE of FEAR in the US ---- fear to leave kids unsupervisedo for one minutes, ride biycles, fly in planes, etc...

and Europe is very different, but i would still say the culture of fear has abig impact, it just has less impact and on different issues: beef (BSE), mad cow, etc... and does not exist in the same way relating to kids (6 year olds ride the subway to school or ride bikes UNSUPERVISED - oh, the horror!), bicycles, helmets (i personally believe in helmets and wear one almost all the time), smoking (the US has really promoted smoking as dangeruos (it is) and the fear of dying is now a really strong motivator to quite - in Europe it's not and smoking continues to be socially popular and successful - note: inthis example fear can have a positive result in my eyes as i hate smoking)

but yes, RISK exists every day. you can die at any time at any moment doing just about anything... burn up in a fire while sleeping, a plane crash out of the sky on your house, get struck by lightning, inhale toxic gasses relaesed from a delivery truck, sun cancer, some biological toxin, get hit by a drunk driver, etc...

dangers are all around and yes it makes sense to minimize the major offenders (like wear a helmet when mountain biking or not drink and drive), but living your life in fear is just depressing....

i feel so sorry for the poor kids whose parents won't let them rides bikes to school (they could get run over or kidnapped!) and must spend every minute of their lives supervised by adults and transported in autos... how sad.

you can prevent many accidents, but you CANNOT prevent every accident... and living your life as if you were trying is not living in my opinion. risk is a fact of life, so deal with it!

P.S. John, you are so "Portland" and i mean that in a good way! i miss that attitude! (i also mountain climb, mountain bike, rock climb, snowboard/ski freedride, etc (mostly so called extreme sports) although i get the impression you are a little more catious than i am, but that's cool)