Do you agree with the research that shows fewer people on bicycles results in less safety for cyclists?

Don't tell six that...

Cycling has its risks, just like other forms of recreation, sport, and transportation. You can get hurt or killed.

"Each year, more than 500,000 people in the US are treated in emergency departments, and more than 700 people die as a result of bicycle-related injuries."
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreation...einjuries.html

So, for those half million people or their families, cycling was not dangerous?

I've actually seen bicycle helmets being tested. At school, my physics class visted a test facility. One of the rigs was to test various helmets. The helmet under test is attached to a head form (containing load cells and other sensors) inverted, raised to around 2m then dropped onto an anvil.

The problem is, this in no way whatsoever represents a real accident. I'm fairly certain no one has ever spontaneously left a stationary bicycle, turned themselves upside down and landed on the top of their head. Helmets need to be tested in accordance with their likely use. For a bicycle, this usually will mean oblique impacts at some forward speed. I don't understand why manufacturers even bother with a straightforward drop test, since the numbers gained from it will have little actual use.

It's a wonder people ride bikes at all... Must be daredevils, all of them....

Yes, and there's no way the protection provided above the test line can be extended below the test line (unless of course, it is a "magic" hat)

Do you have anything even remotely factual to contribute to this discussion?

CPSC tests with a variety of angles to the helmet: http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf

And in everyone of them, the impact tests are above a line that begins from about 1 to 2 inches above the bottom most portion of the helmet, leaving the majority of the head (and the most vulnerable region of the brain) exposed to impacts.

Here's what it looks like

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1214/5...2d7ca6cc62.jpg

Impact protection above the ear, by a fair bit.

Just how many inches of protection to the skull does a helmet provide? 2 inches? Maybe 3? My Bell Image is only about 4 inches deep. My V-1 Pro about the same. So that makes about 2-3 inches of the cyclist protected, about (on average) 65 - 66 inches of the cyclist vulnerable. Isn't that about 5% coverage, 95% vulnerability?

I'd have to check out the research. But if it's something like comparing Amsterdam to Vancouver, I'd probably take results with a grain of salt, since neither represent where I ride very well.

I liked the study from NYC showing increase in safety with increase in ridership, even with current pro-magic-safety-hat perceptions in place...

Substantial independent evidence shows that the number of pedestrians or bicyclists injured increases at a slower rate than would be expected based on their numbers. That is, the risk to the individual pedestrian or bicyclist decreases where there is more people walking or bicycling.


Of course this was the exact opposite of what our helmet evangelists claimed in our run up to our helmet law. That is, that the number of cycling injuries was bound to rise with the predicted increase of cyclists on our roads.

Same website tells us that in the same time period we can expect five times as many deaths from drowning. So maybe you should head on over to the swimming websites and start spamming them with links about how they all need to start wearing life jackets.

And life jackets work far better than bicycle helmets

Oh great, another life jacket Nazi. :lol:

I like this idea, still highly visible, good for side impact and it would cut down on wind noise. keep your ears warm in cooler months, and it's a constant reminder that you are fallible.

Yup. And the life jacket laws are just starting.

Legislative council in King County, Wash. (which includes Seattle) voted five-to-four to require that life jackets be worn by anyone and everyone “on or in a major river.”

Failure to don an approved personal flotation device while “swimming or wading more than five feet from shore, or in water more than four feet in depth,” can get you an $86 fine.

How does number of cyclists in regards to safety have any relevance in this thread outside of locations where helmet laws are in place?

The distraction argument again.

I love how the use of actual data and scientific evidence to back a claim is "spamming" :) It's like I've stumbled into a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Don't wear a helmet! It can upset the humors and might even make the road spirits angry! Plus, if you're suspected of being a witch and are dunked, it will help make you float and prove your guilt!

who ever said, don't wear a helmet?

Because it doesn't matter if there is a law

The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

and when non-helmets users are given information and helmets, they reduce their cycling by half (113/222)

closet

Do you just whine against helmets since you have a helmet law there?

Nope. I'm against anything that doesn't treat cycling or cyclists in a fair and equitable manner. I'd hardly call that being childish.

It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills. Helmets are not the most important aspect of bike safety. Not by a long shot. The main problem with helmets is not with the helmets themselves, it's with the attitude towards them, the idea that they're the first and last word in bike safety. The effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury is seriously exaggerated.

So if this happened at Lake Sammamish, would the Seattle cops pull these guys over for a double offense? (You know. No helmet, no life jacket.)

http://www.waterbiking.org/image1.jpg

Look, I don't disagree with studies showing that as cycling rates increase, injury rates decrease, but you seem to want to conflate this somehow with the helmet debate where there is no real conflation to be found outside of areas with mandatory helmet laws. NYC study agrees with findings that increased ridership seems to lead to increased safety, but it is in an area with pretty aggressive passive helmet use peer pressure, which doesn't see ridership dropping as a result.


For the life of me I could not find that quote in the cited document. I did, however, find out that when given information regarding helmet use, most riders will ignore it and still ride without a helmet. Citing that particular study, quoting some specific finding out of context to the study's objectives and actual conclusions is a colossal fail. And you know it, or should. Such blatant misrepresentation does the bare-head cause no good at all.

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that life jackets save lives. In fact, there are very solid reasons to believe the contrary. Even the term "life" jacket is pure propaganda hatched by the flotation industry to sell products through fearmongering.

- Life jackets are only designed and tested for flotation in calm water, and will not save you from death when hit by a boat or when Maytagged in a Class V rapid.

- Life jackets reduce freedom of movement. This could actually impede your ability to avoid an accident in the first place.

- Wearing a life jacket is likely to induce risk compensation, so people will do stupid things and be more likely to die when wearing a life jacket.

- Life jackets make it more likely that you will snag on underwater obstacles and be trapped below the surface and drown.

- Life jackets impair your ability to cool off by sweating, and could induce heat stroke.

- Life jackets reduce visibility when floating, and could make it harder for you to avoid being hit by a boat.

- There are absolutely no credible studies which show a net life-saving effect for life jackets. Yes, the U.S. Coast Guard reports that 9 out of 10 people who drown in boating accidents were not wearing life jackets, but this statistic is utterly meaningless because it does not control for rates of life jacket use.

- Life jacket companies do not certify that their products will save your life. Why do you think that is, if they really do save lives?

- Life jacket promotion makes swimming seem dangerous and reduces the number of people in the water. This makes it more likely you will be hit by a boat or eaten by a shark.

- If you wear a life jacket kayaking or waterskiing, why don't you wear one in the bathtub too? After all, more than a hundred people a year drown in bathtubs.

Honestly, anybody who thinks a foam vest is going to save their life is fooling themselves.

Post of the Week :)