Woohoo!!! A win for Colorado!
#76
Senior Member
Safety morphs into helmets...helmets morph into safety. Both miss the point. A bicycle is an inherently more dangerous vehicle on the roadway because the rider is perched, somewhat precariously, on top of the vehicle as he rides it...instead of contained, confined, and protected by its shell. The same can be said for motorcycles.
In addition vehicles have 4 or more wheels in two parallel alignments (with respect to the roadway). If motorists sat on their rooftops and steered with their feet, automobiles would be far more dangerous to ride.
I do NOT support madatory helmet laws. If a helmet improves safety it should sell itself (which is why I wear one.) If it does not, of if a rider is willing to bear the supposed incremental risk for some other reason, I have complete respect for their willingness to do so.
roughstuff
In addition vehicles have 4 or more wheels in two parallel alignments (with respect to the roadway). If motorists sat on their rooftops and steered with their feet, automobiles would be far more dangerous to ride.
I do NOT support madatory helmet laws. If a helmet improves safety it should sell itself (which is why I wear one.) If it does not, of if a rider is willing to bear the supposed incremental risk for some other reason, I have complete respect for their willingness to do so.
roughstuff
Cuts and scrapes to be sure, but "serious" injury? Well, that might be more a matter of being hit by an automobile.
Still, even with a possible elevation of risk of superficial injury that harms well being when riding a bike, one would have to consider the improvements to well being as a result of riding a bike. There's no doubt health improves from the inherent nature of progressing a bike.
So...on a bike...bumps and scrapes? Check. Longer life? Check.
In spite of the greater stability of automobiles, I'd say they are the more dangerous vehicle because their impact can kill much more often and health decreases the more time one spends in them
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
if this were true, there would be 40,000 cyclists per year killed on US roads rather than 40,000 motorists.
try again.
#78
Senior Member
For someone charged with advocating for cyclists rights, encouraging people to cycle, and to get those who do not cycle to respect the rights of those who do, I found this sad.
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
Uh, yeah. But ccd rider said "prepared," period. Not "prepared for a minor bump." Big difference.
Those who equate wearing a bike helmet with "being prepared" are badly mistaken about the protective qualities of their headgear as well as the types of dangers they face while riding a bike in traffic. Plain and simple. They would be better off leaving the things at home.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Windsor, CO
Posts: 315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Uh, yeah. But ccd rider said "prepared," period. Not "prepared for a minor bump." Big difference.
Those who equate wearing a bike helmet with "being prepared" are badly mistaken about the protective qualities of their headgear as well as the types of dangers they face while riding a bike in traffic. Plain and simple. They would be better off leaving the things at home.
Those who equate wearing a bike helmet with "being prepared" are badly mistaken about the protective qualities of their headgear as well as the types of dangers they face while riding a bike in traffic. Plain and simple. They would be better off leaving the things at home.
My point was meant to be a GENERAL statement about how someone views wearing a helmet as PART of their safety preparation. It seems there are those who insist that just because someone wears a helmet that they have some sort of disregard for being safe otherwise......as if just wearing a helmet will make them bombproof. I think that is the fundamental disassociation I am trying to counter. Wearing a helmet and being aware of other types of dangers do not need to be mutually exclusive, do they???
In fact, I would add that those who think wearing a helmet is a safe idea ALSO would be keenly aware of other types of dangers because they are already thinking about safety (in their view) by wearing one. The disagreement is on the usage of the helmet as a safety tool.....not whether or not wearing one precludes a rider from practicing other forms of safe riding in traffic.
Will there be those who ride who think that wearing a helmet is all they need to worry about? Of course. But I think stigmatizing all who choose to wear one, from the standpoint of them being "badly mistaken" about their protective qualities, is a gross mischaracterization.
Now, did I take anything you said out of context?
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
But deaths -- accurate statistics are easy to come by there. I think about 600 cyclists and 40,000 motorists die per year in the US? So if we multiplied that cyclist figure by a 100 to compensate for the fact that there's 100x as many motorists -- that would be 60,000/year.
Bikes are safer because the speeds are lower. But they're more dangerous because the operator is far less protected. Also, children ride bikes and don't drive cars, and they often ride very poorly. Which factors win? I think that overall the more dangerous factors do, but not by that much.
Motorcycles have the speed of a car (and then some) and the limited protection of a bike (but more protection -- full helmet, leathers, etc. -- stuff that would cook you riding a bike) -- and I think that statistically they've turned out to be far more deadly than either.
#82
Senior Member
Don't guess.
FARS is a reliable and trusted agency that provides accurate information.
They peg driving at .47 deaths per million exposure hours, cycling with a .26 deaths per million exposure hours, and motorcycling at 8.8 deaths per million exposure hours.
This of course takes into no account of the increase in lifespan a cyclist can expect from the regular exercise cycling demands. Taking this, and the deaths to cyclists into account, people who ride bikes live on average longer than those who do not use a bicycle for transportation.
As I previously quoted a page or two ago,
A bicycle isn't dangerous. A bicycle is beneficial. Cyclists, on average, live longer than regular folk. If more people ride them, we'll be safer, we'll be healthier, and the air that we all breath will be cleaner.
... and don't forget, if all the people who drive cars, rode bikes instead, those 40,000 deaths would virtually vanish.
Not that it would ever happen. People are just too in love with that contraption that kills. After all, they're fun, sexy, and establish stature in society. As long as the deaths happen to someone else, most people don't even worry about the chance they could be killed too.
FARS is a reliable and trusted agency that provides accurate information.
They peg driving at .47 deaths per million exposure hours, cycling with a .26 deaths per million exposure hours, and motorcycling at 8.8 deaths per million exposure hours.
This of course takes into no account of the increase in lifespan a cyclist can expect from the regular exercise cycling demands. Taking this, and the deaths to cyclists into account, people who ride bikes live on average longer than those who do not use a bicycle for transportation.
As I previously quoted a page or two ago,
Cycling may not be a panacea for the ills of modern society but it addresses a huge number of them...
... and don't forget, if all the people who drive cars, rode bikes instead, those 40,000 deaths would virtually vanish.
Not that it would ever happen. People are just too in love with that contraption that kills. After all, they're fun, sexy, and establish stature in society. As long as the deaths happen to someone else, most people don't even worry about the chance they could be killed too.
Last edited by closetbiker; 05-15-10 at 09:29 PM.
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Why not? FARS guesses. Yes, they make educated guesses, but still ... it's a guess.
Deaths are accurately counted. "Number of exposure hours" are not -- and it's not clear that's the appropriate metric anyways, as my bike ride to work takes two to three times as long as my car ride to work.
Yes, but their "exposure hours" (and miles), especially for cyclists, is a guess. For cars they can look at the total amount of gasoline bought and extrapolate from that, but for bikes -- they have to ask people, and most people don't keep track of that.
Injuries are also poorly counted. Serious injuries send people to the emergency room where it might be counted (if they bother), but the smaller ones are not counted. This disparity in statistics leads to "deaths" being the only metric that safety is often judged by, where injuries are important too. (Of course, this is really neither here nor there, though I do think [yes, a guess] that cyclists get injured significantly more than motorists, especially when we consider injuries that don't send you to the emergency room.)
I also imagine that people who drive live longer than those who can't afford cars -- but not because of the driving, but because of better health care and higher income leading to taking better care of one's self. A driver who exercises regularly should statistically live longer than a cyclist ...
But we've drifted far from my point. My point was to point out the massive flaw in the reasoning that came up with the idea that "if this [A bicycle is an inherently more dangerous vehicle] were true, there would be 40,000 cyclists per year killed on US roads rather than 40,000 motorists" -- it totally ignored the point that's there's more drivers than cyclists.
Yes, but I do believe that for a given trip (i.e. same number of miles), you're more likely to suffer fatal injuries during this trip if you ride than if you drive. And the statistics you pulled up (flawed as they are, they're the best available) agree (though you gave the stats on hours rather than miles, as people often do when trying to show how safe bicycling is.)
Quite likely. But I'm really talking about an individual deciding if he should bike or if he should ride, and if he decides to drive today, the odds of him arriving at work uninjured are higher than if he rode. Not greatly higher, but higher.
That "contraption that kills" also gets people to their destination quickly and comfortably, allows them to take several friends with them (or not), can carry cargo, keeps them entertained, and if an accident does happen -- it is extremely effective at protecting it's occupants. Calling it a "contraption that kills" shows how out of touch you are with most people who use one. As for it never happening, the price of gas certainly could make that happen if it went high enough.
And really, the only reason it kills so often is the speed. If cars were limited to bicycle speeds, deaths and injuries would go way down, perhaps by an order or two of magnitude? And if you sped bicycles up to cars speeds, well, they'd be motorcycles with a death rate increased by an order of magnitude.
Deaths are accurately counted. "Number of exposure hours" are not -- and it's not clear that's the appropriate metric anyways, as my bike ride to work takes two to three times as long as my car ride to work.
FARS is a reliable and trusted agency that provides accurate information.
They peg driving at .47 deaths per million exposure hours, cycling with a .26 deaths per million exposure hours, and motorcycling at 8.8 deaths per million exposure hours.
They peg driving at .47 deaths per million exposure hours, cycling with a .26 deaths per million exposure hours, and motorcycling at 8.8 deaths per million exposure hours.
Injuries are also poorly counted. Serious injuries send people to the emergency room where it might be counted (if they bother), but the smaller ones are not counted. This disparity in statistics leads to "deaths" being the only metric that safety is often judged by, where injuries are important too. (Of course, this is really neither here nor there, though I do think [yes, a guess] that cyclists get injured significantly more than motorists, especially when we consider injuries that don't send you to the emergency room.)
This of course takes into no account of the increase in lifespan a cyclist can expect from the regular exercise cycling demands. Taking this, and the deaths to cyclists into account, people who ride bikes live on average longer than those who do not use a bicycle for transportation.
But we've drifted far from my point. My point was to point out the massive flaw in the reasoning that came up with the idea that "if this [A bicycle is an inherently more dangerous vehicle] were true, there would be 40,000 cyclists per year killed on US roads rather than 40,000 motorists" -- it totally ignored the point that's there's more drivers than cyclists.
A bicycle is beneficial. Cyclists, on average, live longer than regular folk. If more people ride them, we'll be safer, we'll be healthier, and the air that we all breath will be cleaner.
... and don't forget, if all the people who drive cars, rode bikes instead, those 40,000 deaths would virtually vanish.
Not that it would ever happen. People are just too in love with that contraption that kills.
And really, the only reason it kills so often is the speed. If cars were limited to bicycle speeds, deaths and injuries would go way down, perhaps by an order or two of magnitude? And if you sped bicycles up to cars speeds, well, they'd be motorcycles with a death rate increased by an order of magnitude.
Last edited by dougmc; 05-16-10 at 09:46 AM.
#84
Senior Member
it sounds here like you are concurring that because of a cars speed, the car is a more dangerous vehicle.
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
it sounds here like you are concurring that because of a cars speed, the car is a more dangerous vehicle.
The speed makes a car more dangerous all around. The metal all around you, the seat belts, the air bags, the crumple zones, the safety glass, the padded dash, the collapsible steering wheel and similar things make it safer for the occupants. Overall, the statistics seem to show that you are more likely to survive a trip of a given distance if you go by car rather than bicycle. (And the statistics don't really look at injuries (as they're not carefully tracked), but I'll bet the odds of an injury are significantly higher on a bike.)
Now, this talks about safety for the occupant. For people not in the car, the increased speed makes it more dangerous. Most of the safety features don't help people outside, though anti-lock brakes (and more effective braking in general) and better lighting and the noise do help to some degree -- and the increased size hurts. But ultimately, when you decide how you're going to make your trip -- you get to decide how you get there, and you don't get to decide how everybody else gets around.
#86
Senior Member
Can we also agree that the exercise that a bicycle provides makes the cyclist healthy?
Last edited by closetbiker; 05-16-10 at 07:09 PM.
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Wait. How do you figure this? By guessing?
(I should also mention that Ken Kifer, the author of that page that talks about how biking is safer than driving (by picking the right statistics and ignoring/dismissing the rest) was killed by a drunk driver while riding his bike.)
Yes. We agree here. Cars kill people who are not traveling in them.
Can we also agree that the exercise that a bicycle provides makes the cyclist healthy?
This discussion is pointless. I'm going to try and refrain from continuing it
Last edited by dougmc; 05-16-10 at 07:46 PM. Reason: fixing punctuation
#88
Senior Member
There's a lot of information on death and injuries that is not guess work and the overwhelming evidence is cyclists live longer and healthier lives than the general population. Serious injury and death is a relatively rare occurrence to cyclists but that's not what helmet promoters want everyone to know because in order to sell the idea to wear a helmet, they first have to convince people that cycling is dangerous.
It's encouraging when helmet laws are defeated or repealed because it shows there are those who recognize that to cycle is to benefit in excess of the inherent risks. Helmet laws are/were passed on the premise that cycling without a helmet is not beneficial because of the risks of cycling, something that is being reconsidered by more sober minds that have learned from experience.
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Edit: I should also point out that I've not dismissed it -- I even refer to it. If you dismiss the studies that have flaws -- you find yourself with no studies. Instead, you need to figure out what the flaws are (a good study will tell you, though by that metric there are few studies regarding bicycle helmets) and keep them in mind as you read.
There's a lot of information on death and injuries that is not guess work
Serious injury and death [I assume you mean directly related to their cycling] is a relatively rare occurrence to cyclists
but that's not what helmet promoters want everyone to know because in order to sell the idea to wear a helmet, they first have to convince people that cycling is dangerous.
Most think helmets are more effective than they really are.
Most think bicycling is more dangerous than it really is.
Some subscribe to the mindset that "if it saves one life, it's all worth it, no matter what the cost".
Some have had their own incidents where a helmet "saved their life" or they didn't have a helmet and were badly hurt and a "helmet would have saved them all that pain". (Of course, they often overestimate the effectiveness of these helmets.)
Many haven't ridden a bike since they were a kid.
Some feel that only children (or older people who haven't grown up) ride bikes.
Many think helmets are like seat belts -- almost no downsides, massive, proven benefits. So if seatbelts are required, so should helmets be.
Many think that other people (it's always other people, not themselves) can not be trusted to make the right decisions regarding their own safety.
A few work in emergency rooms or with the police and see/treat a number of bad cyclist injuries.
A few actually sell, make or design helmets.
Helmet law proponents generally fall into a few of these groups, but they don't all see things the same way. And most of them are convinced that they are doing the right thing (except possibly people in that last group, if they're not in any of the other groups.)
And also note that "helmet promoters" and "helmet law promoters" are not the same thing. Most people have no problems with somebody promoting helmet use -- it's when helmets are made mandatory (for an event, by law, etc.) that people get riled up.
Last edited by dougmc; 05-17-10 at 09:25 AM.
#90
Senior Member
#91
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Only if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jefnvk
Advocacy & Safety
45
06-21-16 11:13 AM