a fairly well balanced perspective is given. However, there is an interesting quirk.
"Despite last week's accident that killed two bicyclists, Portland is probably safer for cyclists than it used to be....
Studies have shown that urban cyclists face fewer risks -- not more -- when their numbers go up...
In the Netherlands, city dwellers travel by bike more than 25 percent of the time, according to a 2000 study at Rutgers University. For each 100 million of those trips, 1.6 Dutch cyclists were killed in accidents in 1995. By contrast, U.S. city dwellers travel by bike less than 1 percent of the time and die at a much higher rate when they do: 26.3 bike fatalities for every 100 million trips, according to the same study...
Cycling would be even safer if more people used helmets and lights...
Bruce Baker estimated that more than half the bike riders in Portland don't have lights or helmets..."
Now I agree 100% with lights, and I can understand why some would think helmets would help but, isn't it interesting that they cite the Netherlands safety record (that is much better than Oregon's) yet almost no one wears a helmet in the Netherlands.
Wouldn't it make sense to try to imitate what makes the Netherlands safety record so outstanding if they would like to have similar results?
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Originally posted by closetbiker
Wouldn't it make sense to try to imitate what makes the Netherlands safety record so outstanding if they would like to have similar results?
Unfortunately distance and culture are two things that can't be changed or imitated. If I've been reading the posts on this forum correctly, there is a much greater acceptance of bikes in the Netherlands than in the US, which would logically lead to drivers making a greater effort to avoid hitting cyclists.
One must also look at the distance of each of these trips and the time they take. I'd be surprised if there were a high percentage of trips over 10km in the Netherlands, simply due to the fact that people there generally don't choose to live 30 or 40km from where they work. I don't think I've ever had a commute under that distance. Generally, the longer any given trip, the greater one's chance of suffering a mishap.
Either way, I don't believe the lack of helmets is a factor here.
closetbiker
I think the car culture in Oregon will restrict a big improvement in cycle safety. Cars get away with too much, too many individuals get on bikes and don't act in a road worthy manner because they don't believe that bikes should be part of traffic.
Pretty huge difference in fatalities per 100 million trips.
nathank
well, i agree with you line of thinking (that we should look at good exmaples like the netherlands to improve cycling safety in Oregon), but...
first, i think planners in Portland HAVE examined other places like Netherlands, Germany and Canada for help in cycle safety and planning. if i remember right Montreal was chosen as the best example and things like the blue striping in auto/bike merge areas was copied from there (i think Montreal uses red? and Portland did some of it's own tests and decided drivers got the message more with blue as red was so over-used in road-signs for emergency and other stuff).
Chris is probably right that trip distance is lower in the Netherlands - when i was there the average bike speed was also VERY slow as the bike paths are designed for 10-20km/h, not the 30+ that i and most "serious" commuters ride. most people ride short distances in normal clothes on upright junker bikes (ok, they're actually supposed to look like they're 20 years old - it's a style called "Holland-bikes" here in Germany - heavy, thick steel, equiped with lights and fenders and usually only a few gears) (it works fine for the Netherlands, but i wouldn't want to commute 10 or 20km on one of those things)
the best thing Netherlands have for cycling is NUMBERS. the actual set-up for cyclists is really not that great: yes there are signed and designated cycle paths everywhere, but there are 2 main problems:
1) bikes are not considered "vehicles" and are not allowed on the street if a bike path is available and bikes are given 2nd-class facilities to cars - bike paths often route around roads. (also a stupid rule in Germany although less enforced here and fewer mandatory bike paths)
2) cars are given priority at intersections (the opposite of Germany where cars MUST yield to bikes at most bike path/street crossing)
in my opinion the Portland cycling setup and planning is great and one of the best in the world -- from what i've seen: France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, central Asia, SE Asia --- Montreal and Portland are the best with maybe Davis, Boulder (stupid speed limit on the bike paths), Vancouver and San Deigo (never been there) to consider (actually, Munich is pretty good too, as is Switzerland and i've never been to Scandinavia...) --- the only things that Portland really needs to improve are:
1) more cyclists
2) better driver awareness and tolerance (already WAY better than almost anywhere else in the US)
Portland is one of the few places in the US where the car is not complete King, but just a dominant force, and most drivers actually expect, looks out for and respect cyclists. but unfortunately even in progressive, environmental- and health-conscious Portland, the car will probably stay the dominant force, and cyclists will continue to be endangered by inattentive motorists in a hurry to hurry-up-and-wait.
closetbiker
I agree that more cyclists would help but I really wish some more restrictions on motorists behavior would be implemented (but I figure this won't happen to soon).
"In Holland and some other European countries, the solution has been to slow down the cars, restrict auto access to city centers, and provide first-rate bikeways. The result has been the world's best bike safety record -- despite an almost zero helmet-wearing population! -- and a tremendously positive health and environmental benefit from so many people riding bikes daily instead of driving. Here in the US we regard the dangerous and irresponsible use of automobiles as given, as an immutable fact. We need to get over that; it's as silly as assuming that "boys will be boys and bring their Uzis to class with them" -- and handing out the Kevlar.
This is where I get frustrated with the BHSI -- they know this very important fact, that cars are, as they say, The Problem; but they will not say it out loud -- only quietly, on a back page, in the closet. It should be said loudly and repeatedly and on the front page. We should hire skywriters.
Ï guess my point is, the city would make cyclists wear helmets instead of say, put in a roundabout, because the city doesn't want to inconveniance motorists if they don't have to even if one would end up in a safer enviroment.
John C. Ratliff
Closetbiker,
I don't have time to compose a long-winded reply about helmets (again).
But I would like to mention one item from the Oregonian that was a bit different, and may influence your reaction. We recently lost a fishing vessel at Tillamook Bay, when a large wave overturned it. There is an investigation on-going, and the Oregonian has reported on it. One of the preliminary findings is that several people died because they did not wear life jackets. The fishing industry is resisting efforts to get people into life jackets because they are uncomfortable, even for just going over the bar at the mouth of the bay. They are using the same reasoning that you are using, and that reasoning is not plausible. Yes, there are other measures the fishing boats could take to keep from capsizing in large waves. Yes, there are other measures that can be taken by bicyclists to avoid accidents. But, when everything else fails, and the #$%* hit the fan (in military language), you may well be dead without that last bit of protective equipment. I'll provide the link later.
Could you get off your almost year-long kick about helmets, and onto something productive? As a person who has experienced both (a Coast Guard rescue as a diver trapped offshore in 20 foot waves who knows the value of being positively buoyant in storm waters, and surviving a bicycle accident which would have been fatal without a helmet), my words to you are that you are barking up the wrong tree for bicycle safety. As a safety professional, I challenge you to re-think your basic presumptions and prejudices.
John
chewa
While agreeing with john's stance on helmet wearing, I think closetbiker also makes a valid (and valuable ) point.
The authorities will look for ways to minimise injuries to cyclists in ways which will least inconvenience motorists.
i.e push helmet wearing when if involved in an accident with a car doing more than say 20mph, the fact that you are wearing a helmet may not help, rather than ensuring that the driver is trained to look for cyclists and drives safely.
The logical extent of this thinking is to ban bikes from roads used by cars, when the safer alternative would be to make bike use on roads more economical (through taxation of fuel and other ways to hit the pocket-with proviso's for those users who NEED to use cars). This would lead to an increase in the number of bikes on the road, greater awareness by motorists and an alteration in driving patterns because of it.
i think that's why the Netherlands is so safe.
closetbiker
John,
Originally posted by chewa
The authorities will look for ways to minimise injuries to cyclists in ways which will least inconvenience motorists.
This is the point I'm making.
The point I was making in the original post was the contradiction of the reporter using the Netherlands as an example of safety, trying to emulate their safety, and doing something that they don't do in the Netherlands and has nothing to do with the safety record in the Netherlands.
(and uh, I've only been here 4 months)
nathank
well John, i agree and disagree with you.
i agree that helmets can be an effective safety device and i generally wear a helmet when cycling...
but i disagree in that lack of helmet use is by far NOT the biggest problem facing the safety of cyclists: it's driver's lack of responsibliity
for one: what about those of us who do already wear helmets? should we say "ok, we're safe now" and then just remain baffled when helmeted cyclists are struck by car drivers?
i do totally agree with ClosetBiker that the necessary change is in the acceptance or willingness to overlook the major irresponsibility of way too many drivers --- and the government's unwillingness to improve or even in some cases enforce existing protections.
someone who cannot control his drinking and drives while intoxicated should not be allowed to drive - and this has REALLY improved in the last 15 years in the US. likewise, someone who drives wrecklessly to save a few minutes getting to the office, or puts on makeup or eats a bigmac while behind the wheel should also not be driving ---- but as ClosetBiker said, the government doesn't want to inconvenience drivers. of course the problem is that the average citizen doesn't want to give up the convenience and "right" to drive for the safety increase it would bring... slowly this is changing as people begin to realize how many lives are lost to driving, but the auto forces attempt to cloud our vision as the status quo is profitable for a lot people...
driving is a priviledge that should be only given to those who are able to handle the MAJOR responsibility that comes with operating a weapon of massive power and force.
we don't let any Joe fly a plane or drive a big rig, but we do pretty much let any Joe that can pass a vision test drive a passenger vehicle --- and then with almost no further oversight or control. most people who earned thier licenses back in 1940 have probably done nothing other than take a vision test every few years and now drive - 63 years later!!
ok, i'm preaching to the choir here as i think most of us probably agree here...
closetbiker
Originally posted by nathank
ok, i'm preaching to the choir here as i think most of us probably agree here...
yes, but it's nice to read it when you have put it so well!
:D
John C. Ratliff
I may owe Closetbiker a bit of an apology, and I do apologize. My thoughts about his starting this thread were that he was again on his kick (and it seems like a year, even if it hasn't been) concerning helmets.
My thoughts are that trying to demonize helmet laws, and continually bringing up the "helmet wars" excludes other aspects of making bicycling safer for us all. Just because the media mentions helmets is not an excuse to begin this helmet discussion that has gone on through so many different threads.
It is interesting that the boating accident I talked about above initially mentioned life jackets in several articles in the initial series (now unavailable because it's over two weeks old). Now, their discussion is on the conditions at the time of the accident, and the decision-making process to proceed over a very rough bar, knowing that it is very rough. Here's the article:
'Square waves' may have borne charter its fate (http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1057492683176371.xml?oregonian?fpfp)
Notice that there is no mention of the lack of donning life jackets in this article. It is further into the accident investigation, and the board of inquiry is boring deeper into the "root causes" of the disaster.
I think that this is what we also need to do. I have mentioned in another thread on this forum that we need to look at taking impared drivers out of the picture. We need to get involved. Here is what I said:
From "Drunk Driver Kills 2 Bicyclists in Portland" thread:
Drunk drivers are people, as silly as it seems to say so, and as such need to be treated as people, and not things. But, they also need not to be in control of a car or other machinery. They are impared, and an impared person should not be driving on the highway.
Years ago, I responded as an EMT to a driver who fell asleep and killed most of a family who were in a Volkswagon he hit head-on. He was impared. We had to transport him and the baby he had just orphaned in the same ambulance.
A diabetic recently drove through a bunch of bicyclists (see the other thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31363) ) in Florida. He was impared. He was seen a day earlier apparently either asleep or unconscious at the wheel of his car in his own driveway (if I remember the news articles correctly). He should not have been driving.
A person high on drugs is impared, and should not be at the wheel of a car at any time of the day or night.
Today, coming home from work, I tried my Zero Auto Interactions strategy (ZAI Strategy), whereby I try not to have an auto within ten feet of me. I had just given blood for the Red Cross, and was riding home. I wanted not to have to worry about cars tonight. At a pedestrian crosswalk on a major intersection (185th and Evergreen in Hillsboro, for those who know this area), I noted four of the drivers who drove by in less than five minutes talking on a cell phone. Were they impared? One did not see me in the crosswalk, and drove right in front of me. Because I had been looking, he did not meet my ZAI criterion (I stayed more than 10 feet away), but this person obviously was not thinking about his driving.
Whether sleep deprived, drunk on alcohol, high on drugs, using a cell phone, or whatever, these people endanger both themselves and others when they get behind the wheel and drive in that state. Our society tolerates this behavior to the tune of 40,000+ deaths per year. How can we change this situation, which is being played out daily and weekly throughout the nation (and others thoo)?
We can work for change, much as MADD has done. We can change laws to have the vehicle confiscated under these conditions. We can write legislators, and not just this forum, to make our thoughts known. At some point, we should not tolerate the types of behaviors we are seeing over and over again. I think that point has been reached.
John
Closetbiker, I would like you to get completely off the helmet issue. Kindly acknowledge that they may do some good for some people, then start talking (like you began doing) about engineering out traffic problems, using administrative controls (getting drunks off the road) and other issues that will really make a difference. Can you do that for a month?
John
closetbiker
Originally posted by John C. Ratliff
I may owe Closetbiker a bit of an apology, and I do apologize... he was again on his kick concerning helmets... trying to demonize helmet laws, and continually bringing up the "helmet wars" excludes other aspects of making bicycling safer for us all...Closetbiker, I would like you to get completely off the helmet issue. Kindly acknowledge that they may do some good for some people and other issues that will really make a difference. Can you do that for a month?
John
Gee that's kind of a loaded apology don't you think?
Kindly acknowledge that they may do some good for some people? Just like on this very thread when I said "I can understand why some would think helmets would help" Does that not do the trick? How about you check out the "Light, Not Heat" thread where on the second page (@http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=28442&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)
I answer a similar claim on my posts (someone reacting on what's going on in their minds, not on what I wrote) I answered,
" I've said I believe to ride safe first, wear a helmet second as I've also posted (@http://www.bikeforums.net/showthrea...15&pagenumber=6), I'm not saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make good sense"
I've even poked fun at myself on this on "a good reason to wear a helmet" @http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=29771
so, can I do that for a month? Yea, I think I've been doing it for 4 months. (and incidently, the last time I debated the helmet issue, it was June 10 so I guess it's already been a month so who's bringing up the "helmet wars"? not me.)
John E
Originally posted by nathank
i do totally agree with ClosetBiker that the necessary change is in the acceptance or willingness to overlook the major irresponsibility of way too many drivers --- and the government's unwillingness to improve or even in some cases enforce existing protections.
...
driving is a priviledge that should be only given to those who are able to handle the MAJOR responsibility that comes with operating a weapon of massive power and force.
...
ok, i'm preaching to the choir here as i think most of us probably agree here...