closetbiker

Actually, a physician did, then the statistician and phc verified it. I just saw the discussion about it, and relayed it here.

Neither you or I have their qualifications or experience, but we're still entitled to our opinions.

closetbiker

There are other studies that show cycling to as safer or safer than walking as well but locally, these collisions statistics reveal that pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times that of cyclists.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why, if cycling isn't safe, that people who ride bicycles on a regular basis live longer than the general population, or how impacts that occur below the test line of a helmet are prevented by the helmet.

mconlonx

Must have missed it -- where did you relay it here...?

mconlonx

Also, you keep not addressing this query of mine. As noted previously, I actually do agree with you on certain points, and there are studies you post which I can get behind. This one particular study doesn't happen to be one of them, so I'd love to review any other studies regarding helmet promotion and ridership rates...

corvuscorvax

Well, ok. If you want to add "context" by citing a study that says both cycling and walking are much more dangerous than driving, that sends rather a different message, doesn't it?

corvuscorvax

Sorry dude. I have a study from New Zealand. Studies from New Zealand always win.

Besides, the study you quote above notes that in 2007 the total number of pedestrians killed in collisions was 75, and the number of cyclists killed was 11, so the ratio of total deaths was about a factor of 7. But that's total deaths, not per hour our per kilometer. This is completely consistent with the other studies I cited, which noted a 7.5 times as many pedestrians as cyclists killed in the U.S. in 2009 (a far larger sample size). So what?

closetbiker

Yeah, 'cause it's not like there's motivation to show their laws they passed are needed and work, right?

If you look at the years of data, you can see that over the years, each year there are about twice as many collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles as there are collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles, yet the fatalities to pedestrians are about 10 times that of cyclists making walking 5 times more deadly in collisions with motor vehicles (which of course is what kills both cyclists and pedestrians)

Also, I don't think a comparison between MVs and bicycles based on kilometers driven is very fair. MVs obviously cover far more kilometers far faster than do bicycles. The comparison also doesn't take into consideration the fact that the inherent exercise required to ride a bike and the sedentary nature of a motor vehicle as well as the damage a motor vehicle causes.

closetbiker

Yeah, it's funny how a number of posters don't answer questions. I'm sure we all have our reasons for doing so but I don't think you can say I haven't answered this question. I believe I said the data is in the tables, that the numbers of the different groups of cyclists observed were different.

As I posted earlier, I can accept if you don't agree with this. Heck, there still a number of people who don't agree helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists, but that's another matter.

Speaking of avoiding questions, I don't think you've answered my question about if you think a sense of fear of injury while riding bikes keeps people from riding bikes.

mconlonx

You answered the question with a single study that doesn't apply broadly to non-European cultures, where cycling is widely accepted as a valid form of transportation and not seen as some dangerous thing to do. Also, one single study with the issues I outlined in detail, including: relevance vs. what the study was actually about; authors' admission of participation, scope, limitations, and validity; reported numbers which seem to indicate helmet use as encouraging partici

Not talking about other matters -- like MHLs reduce ridership, which I happen to agree with based on studies you posted -- just this one. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the single study you posted is far from definitive. I'm simply asking for some other kind of verification, which you seem reluctant to post.

I don't think I've actually avoided that question, if you ever posed it: Of course fear of injury while riding keeps people from riding bikes. And I've expanded my stance regarding that, claiming it is more generally Culture of Fear oriented than anything specific like bike infrastructure (lack of) or fearmongering attributable to the Helmet Industrial Complex.

corvuscorvax

That's the best you can do? Getting hit by a car is worse if you're a ped than if you're on a bicycle? That's why cycling is safer than walking?


Really?


Sorry, dude, but at this point you have been pretty much completely pwn3d.

closetbiker

See? There's a reason. I asked, but you just didn't see it. People miss stuff all the time.

Of course you know we agree about the culture of fear stuff and I'm not surprised you agree fear keeps people from riding.

It seems the disention centers on what it is that whips up fear in riders or potential riders. Near mention of possibilities? Experiences?

closetbiker

Yes. Suffering a fatality is worse than surviving.

Disagreements can arise over which types of injuries are worse than others, but there's a general agreement that death is the same for all and that surviving is preferable to not surviving.

CB HI

Most often claimed by the person that has lost the debate.

rydabent

For ages the anti helmet crowd has treated us to almost every cherry picked study they could find. They also blather about the danger of cycling.

Now how about some hard facts. Reports by the NHTSA show that in 1975 there was 1003 cycling deaths. In 2009 the lates reported there were 630 deaths from cycling.

The US commission on safety reports in 1991 18% of cyclist wore helmets, and now the usage is approx 60%.

Now if you combine those two facts it shows that over the years helmet usage has gone up and deaths have gone down. All of the cherry picked "studies" offered by the anti helmet are quite apparently meaningless. My second point is there is now over 300 million people in the US, and as late as 2009 there was 630 deaths, therefore the conclusion that cycling is dangerous, especially now that 60% are using helmets is without merit. It also points up the fact that helmets are apparently saving lives!! And lastly the heavily blathered idea that helmets are breaking necks and killing people is a total farce also. Hard facts easily trump cherry pick "studies"!!! But I supose the anti hemet crowd can produce a "study" that federal stats are mainly lies!!!

I think it is about time to wrap up this thread!!

LesterOfPuppets

If someone is still using "anti-helmet" to describe one side of the debate, then this thread is FAR from over.

A couple more things to think about when it comes to stats.

In 1973 the US had the greatest number of bike sales in all of recorded history. This is total, not per capita. Thus one can assume that there were still a lot of 30-mile-per-year noobs on bikes in 1975. There was also far less bike infrastructure in 1975.. These factors can lead to more death/injury.

I agree, you can cherry pick stats to support just about any argument.

Helmet choice is a personal protection level decision. Not to be made by anyone but the participant.

LesterOfPuppets

I forgot to add that there were many more bikes in use with steel wheels in 1975. If you've ever ridden steel wheels in my part of the country you know how dangerous that can be.

Disregarding rims, bicycle brakes are generally far better overall at the LBS level.

CB HI

Great job of combining straight non-normalized numbers with percentages to yield faulty results.

Your numbers and percentages can easily be explained by the fewer numbers of kids riding bicycles these days.

So fat kids for better numbers, great trade off.

Deathly Hallows

How many of the people who died while cycling were wearing helmets versus those who were not? Among those who were not wearing helmets, how many of those deaths may have been preventable had the person been wearing a helmet?

prathmann

Different from what? I've never claimed that cycling is safer than driving on a per mile basis. Whether that is the correct metric to use is another question, and, as I said previously, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the calculation of these rates due to not having an accurate measure of the total distance people cycle (or walk).

Most of the studies I've seen indicate that the risk of fatality of walking, cycling, and driving are fairly similar on a per hour basis (but with quite a bit of variation between studies, as expected given the uncertainty above). When expressed in terms of fatalities/per million miles this makes cycling appear to be more risky than driving but less risky than walking. OTOH, people who drive are likely to do so for far more miles than people who cycle or walk - a Sunday drive covers more miles than either a Sunday bike ride or a walk; people who shop by bike or walking tend to use stores that are closer to home; and bike/pedestrian commuters place a higher priority on finding a place to live close to work than do those who plan to drive.

But if you think that fatality risk per million miles is the right metric to decide if helmet use is justified, then it would appear that we should first concentrate on encouraging helmet wearing by pedestrians before worrying about cyclists.

sudo bike

Just to temporarily threadjack, if I may: Why? Is it the cold or ice affecting braking? (doesn't really get all that cold here and I don't have steel rims...)

sudo bike

There you have it folks. Bust out the walking helmets. What's good for the goose...

Although it is important that before one purchases a walking helmet that one take the time to ensure their shoes are properly tied and that their soles and treads aren't worn down (those shoeless hipsters scare the crap outta me!). A high-quality shoe with good grip can go a long way to ensuring you don't fall in the first place. Additionally, I highly recommend people contact their local League of American Pedestrians organization and take a basic waking maneuvers 101 course. Far better investment than a helmet.

I still don't think walking helmets are really necessary, but I could see them as useful for certain pedestrian activities such as running, racing, or walking in bad weather conditions. That said, it's purely personal choice. What I assess as dangerous walking conditions may not be the same as the next guy. Still... there can be no doubt that the evidence shows helmets reduce pedestrian injuries and are effective in reducing forces on the skull and brain.

OTOH, those who walk with helmets may be more likely to engage in riskier behavior than those who do not, and it may actually reduce pedestrian numbers! This is especially bad because even with all the dangers associated with walking, the health benefits clearly outweigh the dangers.

corvuscorvax

(I'll note that the New Zealand study I cited measured accident rates per hour of exposure, not per kilometer. )

But I really don't think we're in disagreement here: I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the accident risk from cycling is comparable to that from driving. Even the raw numbers bear this out, roughly speaking. If you figure that around 2-3% of the population in the U.S. cycles regularly, then a death rate of 600 per year or so is, not surprisingly, about 1/50 of the death rate for automobiles, 30 or 40 thousand per year.

On the other hand, saying "Cycling is as safe as walking, so why not wear a helmet when you walk, nyuh! nyuh!" is little more than a sophomoric debate tactic. Driving is one of the most dangerous things most people do regularly, where by "dangerous" I mean risk of accidental death or injury. Driving is by far the leading cause of accidental death and injury in virtually every age group. The risk of accidental death or injury (and I can't believe I have to be so pedantic as to repeat that phrase over and over again, but apparently I do) from cycling is comparable to that from operating an automobile. And while I agree completely that the health benefits of cycling (or walking) outweigh the accident risk on the whole, that doesn't mean the risk isn't there, or isn't worth paying attention to. You can recognize the health benefits of cycling and seek reduce the accident risk. They are not mutually exclusive -- and if you're bleeding out by the side of the road, I really doubt you'll be thinking "Well, at least I don't have diabetes!"

I also agree that most non-cyclists have an exaggerated and unrealistic sense of the risk involved, and that reduces the number of cyclists on the road, which is bad for everybody. But it doesn't discourage cycling to talk in a realistic and balanced way about accident risk. If you really want to try to tell people that riding a bicycle in traffic carries with it the same risk of accidental injury as a walk in the park, few rational people will take you seriously, because the comparison is plainly stupid. And something else that tends to discourage cycling is the (unfortunately accurate) perception that cyclists tend to be strident, irrational weirdos who respond with absurd, exaggerated outrage at any suggestion, however reasonable, that cycling might have any downsides at all.

closetbiker

and I doubt those who suffer from the debilitating effects of a brain injury from a stroke aren't thinking, "If I only listened to all the warnings and took part in some daily aerobic exercise to prevent this from happening in the first place..."

rydabent

After 70 pages of anti-helmet diatribe, I cant hardly wait for someone to post some cherry picked study to claim helmets do no good. Pound away Im waiting.

njkayaker

They would, of course, be wrong in saying this. Certainly, no respectable health professional would say that anything would "prevent" strokes.

Because you won't get why your statement is funny: you keep saying (paraphrasing a bit) that helmets are worthless because no one claims they "prevent" concussions!