Tuesday Stats for the same melbourne route

# AM commute #

13 Total riders
0 without helmet

Left early for work today - 6:30 am. Pretty miserable. 7 mm of rain overnight and I got a really wet tail. Might have kept some people in bed. A lot of people are still on holiday this week too. 10 of those 13 riders were training on a bitumen velodrome adjacent the shared use pathway.


# PM commute #

31 Total riders
1 without helmet

The rider without the helmet was training on that bitumen velodrome. But one of the riders I passed was a courier that i have seen in the city. He was wearing a helmet but drinking beer as he rode from a glass stubbie. We were on a narrow bridge as he passed (coming towards me) and he got close enough for me to recognise the label: James Squire Pilsener.

Martyr:

Saw 7 riders since our posts. None were wearing a helmet (!) It is winter here, though and only the most hardcore/desperate riders are still out.

Why would anyone want even more government intrusion in our lives? You can't dictate prudent or mature behavior from above anyway, barring a shift to a totalitarian police state ready and eager to intrude into and enforce every detail of our lives. I'll pass on that, thanks.

I think that anyone on a bike who carries proof of a million dollars in health insurance coverage should be exempt from helmet laws. But, too many folks who complain about "government intrusion" are going to show up at a public hospital for medical treatment, and then file for SSI disability to take care of them during their lifetime in a wheelchair. Or, if they die, expect that Social Security will mail a check to their children every month.

As major corporations have shown, the people who whine the loudest about "government intrusion" are the first in line to ask for the government's help when they get into a jam.

Alanbikehouston:
Good idea. But in that case, so should anyone who goes into a McDonalds or buys a pack of cigarettes. So should everyone behind the wheel of a car. And everyone riding in one as well, since auto transport is much more dangerous than is bike riding - with or without a helmet.

So should everyone who takes a shower, for that matter

Alanbikehouston for President!!!!

signed: the insurance industry.

I think that anyone on a bike who carries proof of a million dollars in health insurance coverage should be exempt from helmet laws.

Read questions, #8 & #9

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

Some surprises in these stats compiled by the Bike Helmet Safety Institute. "Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 47 percent of bicycle deaths in 2002."
Some enigmas- high correlation between death and injury and not wearing a helmet. Yet few states require helmets. Maybe local ordinances are the way to go. What's your take on these stats?

:roflmao: :roflmao:

My experiences in Texas that Texas is the "Perfect Storm" for a high number of cyclist fatalities:

- the climate encourages people to ride 52 weeks of the year, even during the winter when "rush hour" traffic is heaviest near or after sundown

- politicians "in the pocket" of the highway contractors fund sub-standard and unsafe roadways

- a high number of "Bubba's" in trucks who deliberately attempt to run bikes off the road (and who will circle around for a second try if they miss the first time)

- and, yes, a high immigrant population. Immigrant workers in my neighborhood often leave their restaurant jobs late at night. Usually no front light. No rear light. No helmet. Often riding on the wrong side of the road. Often from villages with very few motor vehicles. Not used to riding bikes in a city with two million vehicles driven by amazingly incompetent, often drunk or stoned, and sometimes violently hostile morons.

- a police force, that after almost every killing of a cyclist finds that it was the entirely the fault of the cyclist.

- judges who refuse to punish well-to-do motorists who kill immigrant, or low-income cyclists

The list of reasons why Texas is dangerous for cyclists goes on....

The list of reasons why Texas is dangerous for cyclists goes on....

read #15

Wednesday Stats for the same Melbourne Route:

# AM Commute #

16 Total Riders
0 without helmet



# PM Commute #

22 Total Riders
1 without helmet

The rider without the helmet was an old guy cruising. He would have been about 75 y.o.

I think that anyone on a bike who carries proof of a million dollars in health insurance coverage should be exempt from helmet laws. But, too many folks who complain about "government intrusion" are going to show up at a public hospital for medical treatment, and then file for SSI disability to take care of them during their lifetime in a wheelchair. Or, if they die, expect that Social Security will mail a check to their children every month.

As major corporations have shown, the people who whine the loudest about "government intrusion" are the first in line to ask for the government's help when they get into a jam..

So you want not merely for the government to dictate and enforce something as petty and personal as whether or not a person wears a bike helmet, but you also want people to take out huge insurance policies for the "privilege" of not wearing a piece of styrofoam as they ride a bike down the street? Yikes.

Have you ever dealt with health insurance, btw? Getting them to pay up for legit expenses is often a nightmare--I've heard countless horror stories and have personally needed to turn to my attorneys to get what is contractually owed to me. Insurance isn't any panacea, believe me.

Like I said, I wear a helmet because I figure it'll reduce my chance of head injury if I fall, and I know from experience you can get busted up badly without one. It just seems prudent and imposes no imposition on me. But I sure as heck wouldn't advocate making the shamefully paternalistic nanny state we live in intrude even more into our private lives. More laws and agencies and programs will never save us from our own stupidity.

6Shooter--Look for the irony before you start firing! :)

Thursday Stats for the same Melbourne Route:

# AM Commute #

39 Total Riders
0 without helmet

# PM Commute #

41 Total Riders
2 without helmet

Helmetless riders:
> one talking on a mobile (cell?) phone while riding poorly
> one woman riding while taking her boxer dog for a walk


cheers

Marty

BTW:
I have had my Gios (1995 with Campag record running gear) at work - love those blue bikes. Thinking I'll catch the train to work and tap it out the long way home. Might not have stats tomorrow

A British Medical Association (BMA) report (November 2004) supporting the introduction of compulsory cycle helmet use in the UK,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lajeLJP7pNcJ:www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis+BMA+bike+helmets&hl=en%20target=nw
provides stats on compulsory cycle helmet use and reduction of injuries and deaths in several countries. [Note: BMA's references [5], [6], [7] etc. are not included here because the references are not in hypertext. To drill deeper, read the entire BMA report via the above URL of the (Google) cached report].

"Cycle helmets are now compulsory in Australia [5], New Zealand [6], Spain, Iceland (aged under 16), the Czech Republic (aged under 16), Canada (aged under 18) [7] and twenty states in the USA. Studies in a number of these countries have shown that high usage rates of helmets as a result of legislation is associated with a reduction in cycle related deaths and head injuries. Evidence supporting the wearing of cycle helmets continues to mount:

"It is estimated that 90,000 road-related and 100,000 off-road related cycling accidents occur every year in the UK, of which 53% (100,000) involve children under sixteen [8].

"In 2002, 594 children and 1,801 adults were killed or seriously injured as a result of road-related cycling accidents [10].

"Significantly, with child cyclists, 85 per cent of accidents occur off road where primary prevention measures such as cycle lanes, vehicle speed reduction and driver education are ineffective [9].

"Several recent studies and discussions [14] have provided scientific evidence that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries, as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents:

"In the USA, a 30-month study of 3,854 cyclists showed that helmet usage decreased the overall risk of brain injury by 65 per cent and severe brain injury by 74 per cent in all age groups [9]

"An Australian study showed that wearing cycle helmets reduces both the incidence of facial injuries by 28 per cent and their severity [11].

A Cochrane review considering five case-control studies from the UK, Australia and the USA illustrates a large and consistent protective effect from cycle helmets, reducing the risk of head and brain injury by 65 to 88 per cent and injury to the upper and mid face by 65 per cent [12].

"A study of primary school, secondary school and adult cyclists in New Zealand demonstrated a 19 per cent reduction in head injuries to cyclists in the three years after the introduction of legislation [13].

"In Victoria, Australia, an increase in helmet use from 31 per cent prior to legislation to 75 per cent one year after was accompanied by a decrease in head injuries by 40 per cent in the following four years [12]".

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Statistics with people as the denominator are pretty much useless. Need some measure of exposure such as trips, miles, or hours riding because one "bicycle rider" may ride 10 miles in a year and another 1000 miles.

"First, our own cut at Basic Numbers
from many sources:
There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US

About 800 bicyclists die in the US every year"

A British Medical Association (BMA) report (November 2004) supporting the introduction of compulsory cycle helmet use in the UK

Please, I asked for a reasonable argument.

Everybody knows the BMA's position on cycling is simple: the health benefits outweigh all the risks by a factor of 20:1..."Cyclists are advised to wear helmets but legislation to make them compulsory is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to cycle and would not be in the interests of health."

The new report even says

Even in the current hostile traffic environment, the benefits gained from regular cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through accidents for regular cyclists.


do you get it? The BMA believes it's more important to have people cycling - even without helmets - because it is better for the health of everybody - even without helmets

Here are some extracts from the famous BMJ editorial:

International evidence shows that the compulsory use of helmets results in a fall in the number of cyclists. The Australian state of Victoria made the use of helmets compulsory in 1990, and in the following year deaths and head injuries among cyclists fell between 37%and 51%. However, 40%fewer adults and 60%fewer children continued to cycle after the introduction of the laws.

{A] much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.

In countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark pedestrians and cyclists form a much smaller proportion of those injured or killed on the road, though helmets are little used. Instead, these countries have concentrated on safety programmes to reduce motor traffic speeds to 30 km/h in urban areas and separate cyclists from fast moving traffic.


and the post by Leo can be refuted by re-reading questions #1 to #7

"Look at these maps- the earth is flat! and the gaps in the fossil record clearly indicate scientific creationism."

If you truly believe helmets don't reduce head injuries, you are just not getting it.

If you truly believe helmets don't reduce head injuries, you are just not getting it.

I think you're the one that is not getting it.

I'm simply suggesting that

a) cycling is not particularily dangerous and,

b) there are far more effective ways to make cycling safer than wearing helmets

The high priority of promoting helmet use over proper road use by all road users, shows a massive ignorance in understanding of bicycle issues.

The same logic that helmet promoters use could be extended to promoting bicycle bans as a way of reducing injuries.

Read #15 - Without a doubt, the most effective way of avoiding injuries are those measures which focus on accident prevention.

"riding so you are less likely to get into accident situations is the first safety measure; watchfulness and skill in escaping them is the second."

If cyclists make an effort to acquire the basic skills and abide by these two principles, their risk of being involved in serious accidents is miniscule.

Bekologist: If you truly believe seatbelts don't reduce head injuries, you are just not getting it.

closetbiker:I think you're the one that is not getting it.

I'm simply suggesting that

a) driving is not particularily dangerous and,

b) there are far more effective ways to make driving safer than buckling up your seatbelt.

The high priority of promoting seatbelt use over proper driving use by all drivers, shows a massive ignorance in understanding of driver safety issues.

The same logic that seatbelt promoters use could be extended to promoting driving restrictions as a way of reducing injuries.

Read #15 - Without a doubt, the most effective way of avoiding injuries are those measures which focus on accident prevention.

"driving so you are less likely to get into accident situations is the first safety measure; watchfulness and driving skill in escaping them is the second."

If drivers make an effort to acquire the basic skills and abide by these two principles, their risk of being involved in serious accidents is miniscule.

Lottery: A tax on people who can't do math. So let's cut taxes for the lower classes (and narrow the digital divide) by restricting lottery ticket sales to online buyers who can pass a quick quiz on comparative odds such as the following (from Australia, of course ;-) http://www.scottware.com.au/tickets/odds.htm

Winning Powerball (Australian lotto draw) 27,489,577
Winning Oz Lotto (Australian lotto draw) 8,145,060
Winning Tattslotto (Australian lotto draw) 2,036,265
Killed by lightning 1,603,250
Winning Six from 38 pools 1,380,340
Dying from venomous bite/sting 1,159,364
Being murdered (female) 79,365
Being blackmailed 52,632
Being murdered (male) 45,249
Being Kidnapped 33,223
Having malaria 21,739
Being in prison (female) 6757
Trifecta (13-horse race) 1716
Being in prison (male) 396
Having car stolen 142
Roulette number coming up 37
Five successive tosses in two-up 32
Pulling an ace out of a deck of cards 13
Rolling a 7 or 11 in craps 4.5
Dying from heart disease 4.0
Scratch Tickets 3.0 - 6.0
Household with couple and no children 3.0
Australian living in Melbourne or Sydney 2.6
Marriage ending in divorce 2.3
Married couple aged within two years of each other 2.2
Bride being older than 26 at first wedding 2.0

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Even as satire, your points are lame.

Driving. Cycling. Seatbelts. Bike helmets.They're the same. Yeah.

I guess by not wearing a helmet, I'd better avoid accidents?? Since abstinence prevents pregancies, who needs condoms?

Yup, bike accidents and sex. They hold them same properties too.

So Leo, are you saying,

a) the most effective way of avoiding injuries are those measures which focus on wearing helmets rather than accident prevention and,

b) cyclists receive more head injuries than other road users so they should be singled out to wear helmets?

Closetbiker, your 'arguments' against wearing helmets seem to focus on accident reduction. Sound advice to reduce accident potential, but accidents happen. There's a world of hurt out there. If you ride a stationary bike in a closet, you don't need a helmet. If you ride in reality, a helmet is recommended and is proven to reduce severity of injury in the event of an accident.

Leo made an accurate and compelling correlation by substituting 'driving' for 'cycling' in one of your posts. By driving to reduce accidents, and focusing on reducing accidents, seat belts are less necessary, maybe even optional. Drive 15 MPH, always keeping 5 car lengths away from the car in front, maintaining hypervigilance, and maybe seatbelts aren't necessary.

Do you just mean, bike safer, you'll crash less often. And, it isn't FAIR that drivers don't have to wear them as well. But continuing to promote your fallacy that helmets don't help reduce injuries in the event of a crash does a disservice to your fellow bicyclists.

First off, show me were I've said I'm against wearing helmets and that helmets don't help reduce injury. I've never said that.

Secondly, the correlation of seatbelts and helmets show vastly different effectiveness. They are not even in the same league in comparrison. Driving is also far more dangerous than cycling because it has a much larger potential of harm to others than cycling. Leo's first post on this thread showed a link that has driving at almost twice the fatality rate per exposure hour than for cyclists.

Thirdly, no one answers the question on just exactly how often cyclists injure their heads compared to other activities. You say, if you ride a stationary bike in a closet, you don't need a helmet, but how do you know you don't hit your head just as often in your house as on the street? You don't. Just as you don't know you can hit your head walking or driving as often as cycling but somehow, some believe it's important to wear a helmet while cycling but not driving or walking.

Lastly, there is enough information to show there are serious questions as to the effectiveness of the bike helmet.

I live in a province with an all ages MHL and I was all in favour of the legislation when it was enacted but have done much research since it was and have grave doubts about helmets now. I'm not saying they don't have some merit, just not the claimed benefits that many claim. Mostly, as I've posted before, I've discovered, helmets are a remakably poor safety measure but so many have bought into the safety claims of the promoters of helmets that helmet wearing is seen as priority #1 and that dosen't do anything to stop the accidents from happenning, and when they do happen, the helmets often have little effect of reducing the injuries that happen from the accidents.

Maybe a bike helmet will reduce injuries, but so would a suit of armor. What i object to in the debate regarding helmets are very strong opinions, based on very weak data, that may translate into LAWS requiring the purchase and wearing of these devices.

I sail as well as cycle. A look into the sailing mags will show that there are major industries that emphasize the dangers of sailing in order to convince people to buy their products. Do you really need immersion suits, inflatable rafts, flares, EPIRBS, SATNAV, GPS, and on and on? Our fathers sailed without any of it. Sailing has risks, of course, and all this equipment might reduce some of those risks. But do you really need it all... should there be laws requiring it all? Are you a fool or reckless if you don't have it all? Well, many experienced sailors say that sailing is not all that dangerous and making good, informed decisions is what will really keep you safe.

I think that the same dynamic is at work here. There have been bicycles around for a long time, but fairly recently there is a perception that it is dangerous - in spite of data that it is a very safe activity - and that buying this product is critical. Now, in spite of a lack of compelling data that these products provide any real benefit in an activity that is already safe, some people are convinced that anyone who doesn't wear one is irresponsible. Some have even written that people without helmets should be denied medical treatment if injured.

A challenge offered to many pro helmet advocates is to explain why, if making helmet use manatory for cycling, why not driving or walking? Both, statistically, are more dangerous than cycling and both have a risk of head injuires....

If you ride a stationary bike in a closet, you don't need a helmet. If you ride in reality, a helmet is recommended and is proven to reduce severity of injury in the event of an accident.
I would revise Bek's statement above to read: a helmet is recommended and may reduce the severity of head injury in certain instances.

The key is recommended, vs. mandatory; and the issue is the substitution of mandatory helmet use for better safety training for both bicyclists and motorists.

It's actually really simple. Helmets are personal protective gear designed only for risk reduction. They are not a substitute for adequate safety training or for more courteous behavior on the road, and bicyclists should not be singled out for mandatory use.

Practically speaking, mandatory helmet laws make bicycling seem a lot more dangerous than it really is, and discourage bicycle use.

Helmets are personal protective gear designed only for risk reduction.

I would say harm reduction rather than risk reduction, unless you mean risk reduction of harm. Big difference. The risk of collision is the same wearing a helmet or not. Otherwise randya's comments here, and on post #34 have been the best on this thread.

I would say harm reduction rather than risk reduction, unless you mean risk reduction of harm. Big difference. The risk of collision is the same wearing a helmet or not. Otherwise randya's comments here, and on post #34 have been the best on this thread.
Thanks, and you're right, risks associated with bicycling don't change depending on whether or not you're wearing a helmet - that risk can only be reduced by appropriate safety education - I really meant the risk of injury if you have a crash or collision, and only then (1) if your head is involved, and (2) if the injury is within the impact range that a properly fitted bicycle helmet is expected to provide protection.

Closetbiker - thanks for bringing up this interesting subject while I'm recovered enough from the flu to argue, but not quite back up to coding speed (so I can goof off without guilt :-).

I think the first thing you're missing is that helmet wearing is something people almost everyone gets used to. My Specialized M1 is basically a big, yellow, comfortable hat to me. The only people I hear complaining about helmets are very small group of enthusiastically cranky types like yourself (hmm, perhaps we agree on the excellentness of old Bridgestones? :-)

Clearly if helmet campaigns stop people from cycling that's a problem. But I don't find the DL Robinson abstracts convincing - sure you'd expect a temporary drop but what happens down the road so to speak? In the absence of hard data I'm gonna side with not going to discourage cycling in the long run.

Now it is clearly hard to do good studies on this issue. The Australian (McDermott) study, however, does look pretty convincing on the advantages of wearing a helmet. Reducing head injuries by nearly half is pretty excellent. (I notice your FAQ doesn't talk about McDermott btw.)

(Here's the abstract, btw):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8315679&dopt=Citation

BTW - In the presence of solid work like that combined with the people any serious cyclist knows personally who've been told by their emergency room physician that their crushed helmet reduced their brain injury - the throwaway "jackpot in a lottery" line in the FAQ is pretty much totally stupid.

Speaking of which, the stance of that FAQ, quite frankly stinks. The author, for all his protestations of being "frank and accurate" is clearly interested in being neither. He's utterly biased, and if at all honest would have titled the thing the "Why I Hate Helmet Laws and You Should Too FAQ." His kind of sophomoric objective superiority rubs me the wrong way, especially when it's so obviously disingenuous.

So I'm gonna give being pro helmet law a whack - cause your FAQ writer is a jerk :-)

So, if people were rational about things like wearing helmets (or reacting to FAQs) we could leave it up to them. But as you keep implicitly arguing (when claiming they'll think bicycling's dangerous if we make them wear a helmet) people respond to the cues they see. Whether they bicycle and how is not a purely rational decision for most folks, it's mostly monkey see monkey do.

So whether people wear helmets isn't going to depend for the great mass of people on whether it's a good idea, it'll depend on whether the people around them wear them. So not wearing a helmet does effect more than your well being - its part of creating a "helmetless norm".

Does that mean that it's worth the additional inconvenience, cost and burden upon helmet opponents of a mandate? Maybe so, if they cut head injuries in half, if Walmart sells good comfy $20 helmets, people seem to be willing to wear them, and the law doesn't permanently discourage cycling, I think it may well be worth that gain.

If you want to win converts, though. I'd suggest getting some real data on the permanently discouraging cycling side of things. That would be a real argument, for me anyway.

It's too bad you think the writer of the FAQ is a jerk because, if you look around at many respected pages this list is always recomended as a good one. The OCBC is also not an individual but an umbrella group of a number of Ontario advocacy organizations that fight for a cyclists rights to the road and endorses the phrase coined by the world's leading bicycle transportation engineer, John Forester, "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". Forester's vehicular cycling principles are the basis of the Canadian Cycling Association's CAN-BIKE cycle skills training program. The OCBC advocated that the province's Ministry of Education introduce the necessary policies for all Ontario's children to acquire the vehicular cycling skills as taught by the CAN-BIKE program. Little has been done by the provincial government to address these needs.

You could say they have a point of view, but who doesn't? The BHSI sure does. Everything has limitations and statisticss have a natural bias by being a product of who produces it and what aims the producer has. Statistics can still be useful though.

Being Critical means more than simply pointing to the flaws in a statistic. Every statistic has flaws. The issue is whether a particular statistic's flaws are severe enough to damage its usefulness. The BHSI and the OCBC both have information we all could use.

I think the main thrust of my argument is put forward in a couple of links put up by Leo. the first link on the fist post shows cycling has a smaller death rate per exposure hour than driving. The second link to the BMA shows an even more important point. The health benefits gained while cycling far exceed it's risk - even without helmets.

I think we both can agree cycling is a good thing for society. Better health, one less car and such but were cycling is less respected and understood, more unusual, we find all kinds of misconceptions about it's risks and more leway given more usual forms of transportation like driving and walking. How is it, one must insist on helmet wearing on one individual over another, if both have equal risk?

I think the point you make about the discouragement of cycling through helmet laws or not being used to the look of helmets is moot. There is a predudicial point being made when one group is asked to do something that another group is not, even though the situatin is the same for both of them.

Check out a surprising 2003 study, "Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling", IP (Injury Prevention) Online, http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205.

Based on walking and biking data in 68 California cities in 2000, 47 towns in Denmark 1993-1996, and walking and biking data in 8 countries in Europe in 1998. Peter L. Jacobsen, Public Health Consultant in Sacramento, CA found that "The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling [in the locality]. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods."

Jacobsen concludes that "A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling."

Interesting, if true! It follows from this that if adolescents do not consider helmets cool, then it may be a better strategy to focus on encouraging them to bike (with or without helmets) by providing (for example) secure bike shelters) than to mandate wearing helmets (say, hypothetically on a large campus like BU).

But this is not intuitively obvious. If thousands more adolescents were to ride bikes at BU (with or without helmets), I think there would be more road kill on Commonwealth Avenue (a scarey, dangerous highway that runs through the middle of our campus). The crazed motorists know today that they are speeding through one of the densest areas of Boston where adolescents routinely play chicken with cars or rush across the wide boulevard partly because (unlike in Brookline, an adjacent town) there are no effective mechanisms to signal that pedestrians can safely cross two lanes plus east-west trolley tracks.

On the other hand, last summer, I experienced three near day-time collisions as I climbed the hills of Dhún na NGall on a 20-inch Dahon folder (as a vehicle in the left lane). Since I only met one other biker (an amazon from Holland), perhaps the very fast drivers were astonished to encounter this small 2-wheel apparition and thought it was "a sióg" (a fairy) that they should run off the road into the ditch ;-)

But since hill-walking is the aerobic sport of choice of the natives, using Jacobsen' model would lead us to expect less carnage along the roads in Dhún na Ngall than in all of Ireland. Stay tuned- I would expect that this is the case given the fact that Ireland is unsafe at any speed- for sheep, pedestrians, bikers, or motorists! BTW, in Dhún na Ngall, there are more sheep than people, but I did not see any safety in numbers ;-) Rocketing down the hills I sheared my share of sheep ;-)

"There is no mystery as to why Ireland is in the unenviable position of being the third worst in European league tables of road deaths. Poor driving skills and even poorer driving behavior have made an enormous contribution to the number of road casualties. Driving is an acquired skill, and a demanding one on Ireland's busy roads. As well as the right skills, drivers need the right attitude -towards speed, other road users, alcohol, drugs and fatigue." http://www.dir.ie/news/news8.htm

On my next adventure on Ireland's roads, I''ll be on a 2004 Dahon Matrix with DH helmet and armor!

So any anecdotal evidence to support or not support Jacobsen's thesis?

:roflmao: :roflmao:

In Portland, bicycle use has more than doubled over the past decade (based on actual traffic counts), whereas the number of reported cyclist injuries and fatalities has stayed approximately constant.

I can't find real good statistics on the City's web page to support this, but they are available, and I can try and track them down if you're interested. http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Bicycles/default.htm

Some stats on the increase in bicycle use between 1990 and 2000 can be extracted from the census data, here: http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Bicycles/Presentations/CensusModeSplit1990-2000_files/frame.htm

So Portland's investment in infrastructure-bike networks- probably led to a "dramatic increase" in biking between 1990 and 2000. We would have thought before reading Jacobsen's report that more biking during that decade would have caused a big increase in fatalities and injuries. But the fact that reported fatalities and injuries stayed fairly constant seems to support Jacobsen's counter-intuitive thesis (more biking, safer biking). But in Portland, it's more like the odds of being injured or killed in 2000 may be significantly lower than the the odds in 1990. This is interesting. I'll contact Jacobsen to find out if his study identifies improved infrastructure in other cities as a determinant of "safer biking" and whether improving the odds (of not being injured or killed) is a practical metric.

:roflmao: :roflmao:

Biked onto the BU Campus this morning. Real feel was -17 F. Thousands of students walking- some biking. What did the walkers have in common with the bikers? About half the walkers had no hats; half the bikers were not wearing helmets. Forget infrastructure- the real feel could go to -34F and everyday we could have speeding cars hit bikers without helmets or have walkers with hypothermia collapse in an Expresso Royale, and we'll continue to see Supercuts and other hip hairdo's being loaded into ambulances.

:roflmao: :roflmao: