helmet thoughts

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And [pedesestrians] are injured more per hour, more per mile, and
more in total than cyclists are.

!!! You're just going to throw that one out
there and hope nobody notices??

Well, you know how I feel about the data,
er, estimates, but what I've seen shows
that cyclists are injured at a much higher
rate than pedestrians, i.e. 1000% higher
per-mile.

http://policy.rutgers.edu/tpi/docs/usascii.pdf

That study relies on estimates from the
USDOT and WISQARS.

I'm afraid I lack the expertise to know if the numbers
in the following exerpt provide an accurate picture.
I'm just contributing it in case it has some benefit
or value for cyclists and cycling in general.

While it appears to support Frank's claim in the above
quote, I don't think he's gonna like the last sentence.
But hey, it's got something for everybody ;-)
(Is that what "truthiness" is?)
-----

(Page 6): Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
by John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra

"Consider, for example, Exhibit 2, which shows the traffic fatality
rates for walking and cycling in the United States compared to the
rates for occupants of motor vehicles. These rates were calculated
on the basis of official statistics from the U.S. Department of
Transportation. On a per trip basis, walking and cycling are roughly
three times as dangerous as riding in a car. In 1995, there were 29
pedestrian fatalities, 26 cycling fatalities, but only 9 car occupant
fatalities per 100 million person trips. Walking and cycling appear
even more dangerous when those fatality rates are calculated on the
basis of distance traveled. Per kilometer traveled, walking is 36
times more likely to result in fatal injury than riding in a car;
cycling is 11 times more likely to result in death (see Exhibit 2).
In short, the dangers of walking and cycling in America are not just
perceived; they are real."

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

I> I'm afraid I lack the expertise to know if the numbers
in the following exerpt provide an accurate picture.
I'm just contributing it in case it has some benefit
or value for cyclists and cycling in general.

While it appears to support Frank's claim in the above
quote, I don't think he's gonna like the last sentence.
But hey, it's got something for everybody ;-)
(Is that what "truthiness" is?)
-----

(Page 6): Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
by John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra

"Consider, for example, Exhibit 2, which shows the traffic fatality
rates for walking and cycling in the United States compared to the
rates for occupants of motor vehicles. These rates were calculated
on the basis of official statistics from the U.S. Department of
Transportation. On a per trip basis, walking and cycling are roughly
three times as dangerous as riding in a car. In 1995, there were 29
pedestrian fatalities, 26 cycling fatalities, but only 9 car occupant
fatalities per 100 million person trips. Walking and cycling appear
even more dangerous when those fatality rates are calculated on the
basis of distance traveled. Per kilometer traveled, walking is 36
times more likely to result in fatal injury than riding in a car;
cycling is 11 times more likely to result in death (see Exhibit 2).
In short, the dangers of walking and cycling in America are not just
perceived; they are real."

Pucher has a long, solid reputation of hyping the "dangers" of
traveling outside a car, in order to campaign for bike paths. I really
wish bike advocates would find a different approach. The "Biking is
dangerous!!!" spiel does more harm than good.

The key in his comparisons is the denominator. Yes, cars are safer per
trip and per mile. One of the major reasons for this is the large
number of car miles traveled on limited access highways. These are far
safer for car occupants than the city streets and country roads that
cyclists use. But when you compare on a more equal basis - say,
recognizing that bikes are not routinely used for 60 mile commutes -
the comparisons are better for bikes.

A couple years ago, the General Accounting Office (IIRC) put out
figures regarding the fatality rate of motorists on country roads. The
GAO was trying to say we've spent enough money making freeways safer;
we should now spend money on the much more hazardous country roads.

Using their figures and some reasonable assumptions about average
speeds, I computed the fatality rates per hour for driving on country
roads. What I found was that the fatality rate per hour for all
cycling was about equal to the fatality rate for taking a drive in the
country. Yes, the motorists got further per fatality in their country
rides; but if you look on a country ride as a way to pleasantly kill an
hour, that hour is no more likely to kill you if you're on a bike or in
a car. (If anyone likes, I can try to dig out my figures.)

I'll also point out that bike commuters have lower _overall_ fatality
rates than car commuters. IOW, even if the car driver doesn't put his
head through the windshield, he'll have his good, old-fashioned heart
attack instead.

Personally, I think the fatality rates for motoring, walking and
cycling are all sufficiently low that we don't need to wring our hands
about any of them. By one measure or another, one mode might come out
somewhat better or somewhat worse, but the differences are just
differences in infinitesmals. Certainly, overall, there's no reason to
say cycling is particularly dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Personally, I think the fatality rates for motoring, walking and
cycling are all sufficiently low that we don't need to wring our hands
about any of them.

Personally, I think any fatality rates for motoring, walking and
cycling are tragic, and needlessly so.

And I think it's [irresponsible] motoring that inflicts most of
the fatality rates on all the above categories.

Furthermore, when people cough-up these "wear your helmet" posts
or complain about unhelmeted cyclists on the streets & roads, I'm
inclined to infer those whiners are drivers who are too lazy to
take responsibility for the safe operation of their own motor
vehicles. They want us cyclists to do their work for them, hence
the admonitions to us to wear helmets. These drivers aren't
worried about the safety of any cyclists they encounter. They're
only concerned with their own selfish wants.

Bicycle helmets are for the benefit of drivers rather than cyclists.
It doesn't matter to Society whether helmets really work or not.
All arguments about the efficacy or effects of helmets lead to
the same old, go-nowhere cul-de-sac. All that matters to the
helmet-demanding crowd is that cyclists appear less vulnerable.
We mustn't upset the motorists.

Trouble is, if we are wearing helmets, maybe those drivers
might be more inclined to take chances with /our/ necks when
they overtake us. After all, we're "protected", so it's okay
to be a little sloppy.

Anyhow, whenever somebody posts saying: "Wear your helmets", I'll
bet dollars to donut-holes the post is coming from somebody who
regards having to steer their car a little around a bike on the
road to get past it as some sort of major hassle.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Quoted message said:

While cyclists are more
likely to get hit, pedestrians are more likely to
get killed by it.

Sorry--I dont actually believe that.
Cyclists are more likely to be injured,
serious and otherwise. Pedestrians are
more likely to be hit/run over by cars
and are thus more likely to be killed.

Robert

OK, as I always say all are free to hold any belief they wish.

Just as a point of information. What is your view on helmet efficacy?
Just wondering if that has any correlation with how you interpret the
tone of various posts.

I mistakenly said:

This comes from the National Household Transport Survey.
It's not perfect but at least we know how the numbers
were obtained.

Interestingly, NHTS respondents claimed an average
of more than 1 person hour per day in cars, about
100,000,000 hours per year in the US. That means
the fatality rate for driving/passenger is < .1
per million hours. Is that right? Please check
math, I am only a messenger.

Sorry should read 100,000,000,000
person hours per year in cars.

R

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you have any
information on how "injury" was defined? So far, I haven't found an
explanation by checking the sources in the endnotes.

It's the WISQARS database which I believe is based
on the NEISS or something similar. It's an estimate
of those seeking medical treatment for injuries,
ER and outpatient.

Is there a definition of cycling, when including numbers under cycling?
It would be a given to include road cycling, and off-road cycling
(they really should be separated out, for our purposes though), does it
also include stunts performed while holding onto a bicycle?

I've seen some of the stunt guys interviewed, and some of these guys
have a "frequent flier plan" at the local hospital, because they have
broken nearly every bone in their bodies, and have very little "surface
area" that hasn't had major road rash.

There are also road cyclists that have riden 20-30 years, and never had
an incident serious enough to warrant a doctors visit, even when the
doctors visit is essentially "free".

I wonder if your numbers would include someone who was injured, and
rather then going to a hospital, went to their regular doctor the next
day. Because they consider it better to wait 12 hours and go to their
regular doctor, then spend 16 hours in the E.R. waiting to see a
different doctor.... Regular doctor might write down the reason for
treatment, but may not, might write something indecipherable.....

W

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you using Australian data for that?

Yes, that's what that paper was using. But I note that it agrees well
with the American data I have seen. (And British data, and French
data, etc.)

I question your definition of 'agrees well.'
Could you post those numbers again?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(In the past, you've said such figures are either wrong, or
impossible to determine, or both.)

btw, no I haven't. I've repeatedly stated that
they could be right on the money for all we
know, but in the absence of a methodology
or any sort of background information for the
numbers, it is pointless to use them for
your arguments, and assinine to denegrate
people for pointing out these glaring faults.

Here is the 2001 NHTS methodology:

www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/section_04.html

Note that there is no way to determine
total hours cycling from this particular
survey. All they have is proportion of
trips by mode, and bicycle isn't even
specified, but is apparently to be included
under 'other.' 'Other' accounts for 1.7%
of total trips and .3% of personal household
vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This comes from the National Household Transport Survey.
It's not perfect but at least we know how the numbers
were obtained.

And I recently posted an explanation that was given to me by a Brit on
how the British numbers are obtained. They have an extensive, ongoing
survey system, and they back it up with trained observers counting
modes of transport on a wide selection of roads. Again, their numbers
are comparable to those of other countries.

'Comparable' in the sense that the numbers show it is
many times more dangerous to ride a bike in the US
than Britain? Which numbers are you comparing?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, NHTS respondents claimed an average
of more than 1 person hour per day in cars, about
100,000,000 hours per year in the US. That means
the fatality rate for driving/passenger is < .1
per million hours. Is that right? Please check
math, I am only a messenger.

First, I note that you corrected yourself in a later post, but you've
still got some math problems.

Yes, sorry, that was a 3am special. ~.4 fatalities
per million hours it is, acccording to the NHTS.

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry, but I just can't get very excited about the vast majority of
cycling injuries. You'll have to do the worrying for me.

The vast majority of cycling injuries are trivial and
don't get picked up by the NEISS. I am not worried
about these injuries in the slightest bit, not for me,
for you, or anyone else. In fact I feel that road rash
is a sort of gift from the gods, a gentle wakeup call
that could ultimately help riders avoid the
serious brutal injuries that some friends of mine
have endured.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The injuries counted here which show cycling
to have 1000% more injuries per mile than
pedestrians are ER visits or outpatient visits.

By the way, that's a nice trick, the "1000% greater" thing. For
anyone who isn't used to such things, the other way of stating it is
"ten times as great."

Ok, ten times as great if that somehow makes you feel better.
Remember that's going to the ER at 10 times the rate of
pedestrians, which says little about the overall injury rates,
which for all we know could be 100-to-1.

Quoted message said:

Cyclists go to ERs or outpatients primarily for road rash, as I've
detailed in the citation of Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An
Examination of Hospital Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with
Police Accident Data," Transportation Research Record #1168.

That clashes very seriously with the NEISS raw data
I have here which seems to show CT/AB at about
20-30% of total ER visits. There are as many fractures.

Quoted message said:

And it's probably true: Cyclists probably do get road rash ten times
as often as pedestrians.

Agreed. And 95% of these road rashees don't
seek medical treatment and are not included in
the data set we are discussing here, which
includes only those seeking medical treatment.

I'll ask again: do you think there is something
special about cyclists which leads them to the
ER for trivial injuries, or do you think pedestrians
and cyclists would seek medical treatment for
trivial injuries at similar rates?

There is something which cyclists have that
pedestrians don't, and that is a vastly wider
array of possible mechanisms for injury.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding fatalities per hour, we both seem to agree [cycling is]
safer than walking. Right?

It does seem so.

Good!

Yes, cycling is not particularly deadly, and that
is good. I think this says great things
about the durability of the human carcass (we
bounce).

If you can look at the stats and see the injury
rate of cyclists compared to other modes of
transport and it does not jump off the page at you,
you are in massive denial.

Good/Bad.

Robert

Stephen Harding said:

A situation serious enough to crack your head seems likely to
cause other injuries that would send you to the ER, so the population
of persons that never see an ER because they were wearing a helmet
is possibly a small one.

Perhaps, but not necesarily. Not every serious injury is serious at
multiple body sites. It really depneds on the specific nature of the
accident and what body part(s) get impact.

Quoted message said:

Fact is, helmet or not, most bike injuries aren't going to involve
head smashing to begin with, thus the belief by many, such as me,
that the danger to my health of not wearing one is small. This is
the way most people would feel about wearing one while walking or
riding in their car. Not enough danger to be bothered.

And I can't argue with your conclusion- for you.

Again, if we take out the argument concerning compulsion this really
all comes down to individual choice. So I think it fine that you make
that decision. I agree that overall raw number of cyclist serious
injuries is small enough in the big scheme of things so that unlike the
choice to smoke or become obese you are not impacting insurance rates
and thus I think that you should be able to make just that choice.

That's a good study to reference whenever someone attempts the
"Netherlands rationalization."