Cycling is dangerous



Status
Not open for further replies.
I wrote from memory:

>I can lay my hands on DC MPD data, relating to which are the most dangerous intersections in my
>town, unfortunately this data does not break out pedestrian versus cyclist death and injury rates.

It turns out it does differentiate between cyclists and pedestrians.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/family/bikers_report99.shtm

It does not profile cyclists by type, as we know them, but it is

as to who the, ah "perps" were.

But it still doesn't suggest that cycling is dangerous, even in a very dense traffic environment.
It also breaks the data out by accident type, which doesn't contradict anything we don't all
ready know.

It is an interesting read.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
Rick Onanian wrote:

> If we were talking about a severe risk, that logic would apply. Since we all agree that the risk
> is minor (although I often take issue with the reasoning), such small issues as harassment and not
> having a handlebar to hang the helmet, do apply.

Don't hang your helmet; keep it on your head, where it belongs!

And I'm surprised you keep bringing up this "harassment" nonsense. It's tantamount to saying "I wear
a helmet because everyone else does". Are you so insecure?

--
Benjamin Lewis

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome
Klapka Jerome
 
I've changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the content.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:13:57 -0400, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> What does that have to do with wearing a helmet while bicycling?
>
>You seemed to imply that since this is a bike group, helmet wars are centered on bikes.
>
>I simply point out that no such wars occur on the motor vehicle group I read. Doubt they occur on
>hiking groups. Perhaps on scooter/rollerblade groups.

Why are you concerned with other groups?

>In short, it seems the "helmet or death" claimants concentrate only on bicycle helmets. Equal or
>more dangerous activities get no attention.

I'm glad that I'm not a "helmet or death" claimant.

>> >Do you only injure your head when you ride your bike?
>>
>> No, although my worst injury ever would have been reduced to about as bad as any other had I worn
>> a helmet at the time.
>
>Don't follow this, but it probably doesn't matter. No head injury, but a helmet would have
>reduced/eliminated some other type injury?

No, my worst injury ever was a head injury. I was off-road, and took a dive; one side of my face was
torn up, and I needed stitches in my eyelid. A helmet, through it's thickness, would have offset
that injury just enough so it wouldn't have bothered my eye -- and I would have been able to keep
riding and not go to the emergency room. Afterwards, my eye crusted up with icky pus and stuff for a
few weeks.

Take a look at the picture, if you dare (I'm ugly enough without scabs...):
http://members.cox.net/thc/BrokenFace.jpg

>Yes but my inquiry was focused on why people think helmet use on a bike is necessary while not on
>any other type activity (walking/motoring)? Why a head injury from a car is somehow less a concern
>than from a bike?
>
>That's what I meant by fixate

Okay. However, I don't see why other activities are a concern.

Personally, my injury rate on a bicycle is much, much higher than in a car -- that is, injuries per
hour or per mile. For other people who ride off-road, the numbers are probably similar. For on-road,
I imagine that it's closer, but even that depends on how they ride (given that they all ride
carefully) -- maybe one person rides relaxed to spend time enjoying scenery, while another is riding
as hard as he can for fitness or excitement. Either way, they depend on others around them to drive
safely, and are much more vulnerable than those others for any given accident.

>> The intent of the law is to punish racing, AFAIK, not a visibility/hearing issue (although
>> there's a good argument against mandatory motorcycle helmets). However...you know, while nobody
>> has argued it, we've all (apparently) taken it for granted that this is true.
>
>If you think helmets are a good idea while bicycling, I find it difficult to believe you would
>think not wearing one on a motorcycle would be OK.

Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is OK. Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle is OK. It's a good
idea on either one, though. I am, however, against mandatory helmet laws for either one. None of
that was my point above, though.

My point was, if you find yourself in an argument against MHLs for motorcycles, the decreased
visibility/hearing issue would be a good argument to use (and I'm sure that it gets used).

>Personally, I always wore a helmet when I rode a motorcycle, even in states where they were not
>mandatory. Felt naked without one.

Good choice.

>> Why are laws so hard to find? They should be so easy to find that anybody can find them in under
>> a minute. How are we supposed to obey them when we don't know them?
>
>Some states have laws on the web, or at least a selected subset of them. I've found laws relative
>to bicycling for quite a few states via Google.

Indeed, my state (RI) has laws on the web, but it's difficult to search them, and I'm not at all
sure that they're complete.

>SMH
--
Rick Onanian
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:23:51 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> Since we all agree that the risk is minor (although I often take issue with the reasoning), such
>> small issues as harassment and not having a handlebar to hang the helmet, do apply.
>
>And I'm surprised you keep bringing up this "harassment" nonsense. It's tantamount to saying "I
>wear a helmet because everyone else does". Are you so insecure?

What kind of pretzel logic is that? We've already determined that the reason that I wear a helmet on
a bicycle is my assessment of risk vs. cost. As I said, I am never a pedestrian, so I don't know
what it's like to be a pedestrian; but I'm sure that as a pedestrian wearing a helmet, people would
stare, teenagers would whack you on the head, and police officers [as well as busybodies] would stop
you to question you. Those would be some reasons for not wearing a helmet as a pedestrian.
--
Rick Onanian
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

...

> No, my worst injury ever was a head injury. I was off-road, and took a dive; one side of my face
> was torn up, and I needed stitches in my eyelid. A helmet, through it's thickness, would have
> offset that injury just enough so it wouldn't have bothered my eye -- and I would have been able
> to keep riding and not go to the emergency room. Afterwards, my eye crusted up with icky pus and
> stuff for a few weeks.
>
> Take a look at the picture, if you dare (I'm ugly enough without scabs...):
> http://members.cox.net/thc/BrokenFace.jpg

That's nasty, Rick! Looks like you were about 1/4" from losing an eye.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
Rick Onanian wrote:

> No, my worst injury ever was a head injury. I was off-road, and took a dive; one side of my face
> was torn up, and I needed stitches in my eyelid. A helmet, through it's thickness, would have
> offset that injury just enough so it wouldn't have bothered my eye -- and I would have been able
> to keep riding and not go to the emergency room. Afterwards, my eye crusted up with icky pus and
> stuff for a few weeks.
>
> Take a look at the picture, if you dare (I'm ugly enough without scabs...):
> http://members.cox.net/thc/BrokenFace.jpg

It looks to me like a helmet would have had marginal effect in preventing such an injury, but you
were there so I'll take your word for it.

You clearly need a full coverage helmet I'd say!

SMH
 
>That's nasty, Rick! Looks like you were about 1/4" from losing an eye.

Yeah, but he still looks like Frank Zappa.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:23:51 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rick Onanian wrote:
>>> Since we all agree that the risk is minor (although I often take issue with the reasoning), such
>>> small issues as harassment and not having a handlebar to hang the helmet, do apply.
>>
>> And I'm surprised you keep bringing up this "harassment" nonsense. It's tantamount to saying "I
>> wear a helmet because everyone else does". Are you so insecure?
>
> What kind of pretzel logic is that? We've already determined that the reason that I wear a helmet
> on a bicycle is my assessment of risk vs. cost. As I said, I am never a pedestrian, so I don't
> know what it's like to be a pedestrian; but I'm sure that as a pedestrian wearing a helmet, people
> would stare, teenagers would whack you on the head, and police officers [as well as busybodies]
> would stop you to question you. Those would be some reasons for not wearing a helmet as a
> pedestrian.

Exactly the same logic would have applied when people first started wearing bicycle helmets. In
fact, the helmets were even more "dorky" looking then. Good thing there were a few brave souls to
pave the way for you, so you can wear one without humiliation.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Grub first, then ethics. -- Bertolt Brecht
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:57:03 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That's nasty, Rick! Looks like you were about 1/4" from losing an eye.
>
>Yeah, but he still looks like Frank Zappa.

My hair hasn't resembled his (a la
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38219000/jpg/_38219347_zappa_150.jpg ) since I had a fr0 in
high school.

Someday I'll get a picture of that fr0 online...

It was handy in my wallet on my high school student ID until I lost it while plowing last winter.

Hey Kevan: If everybody only ever drove bicycles, how would the streets get plowed? Can you push a
plow with a bike? ...a few minutes research later... Well whaddya know! It's such a simple concept,
grade school children have already invented it: http://www.dubuque.k12.ia.us/Washington/Invention/
http://www.east-haven.k12.ct.us/eha/yearinreview2001_02/grade78/invention/studentsites/timkeeganweb-
page/bicycle1.html

Something else that came up while googling bicycle snowplow:
http://www.dubuque.k12.ia.us/Washington/Invention/ and for the "How do we deal with broken glass"
thread: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Bicycle_20Glass_20Broom

Apparently, Pedal Power in Work, Leisure, and Transportation, by James C. McCullagh, ed., Rodale
Press, 1977 describes a bicycle snowplow.

Hmmm...bicycle snowplow...hey, there's something I can use the collection of old bikes for! Weld 'em
to the front of the ol' dumptruck...
--
Rick Onanian
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:47:58 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz
Society wrote:

>Hey Kevan: If everybody only ever drove bicycles, how would the streets get plowed?

Y'all Yankees can figure that out for yourselves.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Hiccuping & trembling into the WASTE DUMPS of New
Jersey like some drunken CABBAGE PATCH DOLL, coughing in line at FIORUCCI'S!!
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:24:26 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I've changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the content.

Oh? The original post was about helmets, helmet laws and comparisons of the risks while cycling with
the risks of other activities and how they pertained to helmet wearage - sort of like where the
discussion is now.

I'm sure that we have yet to see the limits of your intellectual dishonesty.
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:47:56 GMT, Chris B. <bikerider@-NOSPAM_THANKS-rogers.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:24:26 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I've changed the subject line to more accurately reflect the content.
>
>Oh? The original post was about helmets, helmet laws and comparisons of the risks while cycling
>with the risks of other activities and how they pertained to helmet wearage - sort of like where
>the discussion is now.

I didn't say "I've changed the original post to more accurately reflect the current content".
"Cycling is dangerous" is not what we were discussing; we were discussing helmets.

Besides, the original post asked about the risks of cycling, with the resulting information to be
used against a helmet law -- it was not itself asking about helmets. It did mention helmets, but was
asking about danger (regardless of helmets).

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2901102167d&selm=3F8C2690.8DF45C19%40algonet.se

If the original post had explicitly asked about helmets, I'd still be right -- "Helmet wars, contd."
is a more accurate description of this thread than "Cycling is dangerous".

>I'm sure that we have yet to see the limits of your intellectual dishonesty.

I'm sure that we have yet to see the limits of the "Rick is an evil, dishonest asshole who will
steal your children and force you to wear a helmet" attitude.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Yes Cycling is dangerous.

There are lethal situations out of our control every moment. This is not limited to busy city streets.

I think the benefit outweighs the danger, though that may be the addiction speaking... =)


Jacob, Can
 
If helmets are the subject,

wear them!

though I was wearing one when I broke my collar bone last week, and when I tore a quarter sized hole through my elbow joint, and pulled the muscles off my bones a few months ago... I am considering buying some armor from my chest to fingers and hip to toes, to prevent me from testing the resources allotted to the health insurance-less requiring substantial medical help. On average I really really enjoy cycing, though I am having quite a blow to my enthusiasm by spending so much time in convelescence.
 
Can wrote:
> If helmets are the subject,
>
> wear them!
>
> though I was wearing one when I broke my collar bone last week, and when I tore a quarter sized
> hole through my elbow joint, and pulled the muscles off my bones a few months ago... I am
> considering buying some armor from my chest to fingers and hip to toes, to prevent me from testing
> the resources allotted to the health insurance-less requiring substantial medical help. On average
> I really really enjoy cycing, though I am having quite a blow to my enthusiasm by spending so much
> time in convelescence.

Wow - I think reading cyclingforums must cause one to crash a lot!

--

Frank Krygowski
 
Rick Onanian wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:06:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Rick Onanian wrote:
>>
>>>It's pretty clear to me -- you can jump in any direction on foot, but on a bicycle, you can stop
>>>or curve a little -- and even if you dive off the bike, you have only a 180 degree path to dive.
>>>It's clear to Frank Krygowski too, who believes that being able to dive more responsively is
>>>helpful when on a blind curve in the dark (although he doesn't know why it's not helpful in
>>>better visibility).
>>
>>Please. Show at least a little honesty when attributing remarks to me. When you lie about what
>>someone else has said, it makes it clear you're grasping at straws.
>>
>>Or are you not lying - just confused?
>
>
> I must be confused. See: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1158811187d&selm=927f127c.0310070-
> 739.344e51b%40posting.google.com&rnum=39 You said:
>
>>A cyclist without lights and reflectors is nearly invisible. It's better to walk the bike than
>>ride it that way. And I wouldn't ride in super-dense fog, based on what I know now. (My experience
>>with it is very limited.)
>
> I replied, and you replied to that with:
>
>>My guess is that yes, walking in the dark _is_ safer than riding an unlit bike in the dark.
>>When walking, it's practical to stop instantaneously when a car is approaching, and step well
>>off the road.
>
>
> So, you're right. Above, I said "dive", when you really said "step well off the road". Also, I
> added "on a blind curve", but you did not say that at all.
>
> However, you still haven't told me why, while that is an advantage in the dark, it is not an
> advantage with good visibility.
>
> So, I was confused about "dive", but the rest stands.

You're still confused.

The answer to your confusion is that, in my opinion, riding an unlit bike at night is unusually
dangerous. You can argue against that if you want, and I know that the data confirming it is sparse
indeed - but at least one person who's studied the data extensively (Riley Geary) believes that
unlit cyclists may represent roughly half of all fatally injured cyclists. Given the rarity of night
cycling in the US, that's a high degree of danger.

Compared to that, walking a bike away from the road (as I meant) is safer. No diving necessary, BTW.

Incidentally, as a teacher, I occasionally (rarely) have a student who needs every minute detail
explained over and over. I'm willing to help them, but I sometimes wish I could just advise them to
change majors. IOW, I realize that they don't have the capacity for the subject material.

I feel that way now.

Have you ever thought about taking up jogging?

--
Frank Krygowski
 
David Kerber wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>David Kerber wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>For one thing, head injuries are very rare in a car if you have your seat/shoulder belt on. If
>>>someone is killed in those cases, it is usually due to massive trauma.

Not true at all! Head injury fatalities are not at all rare in cars, despite seat belts and air
bags. I've watched videos of impact tests, showing brand new cars with properly working bags and
belts - and crash-test-dummies heads smashing into the A pillar, into the roof, into the B pillar -
and sometimes all three.

>>
>>I don't think so!
>>
>>Think I came across 50,000 as the number of head injuries from automobile accidents every year in
>>the US, but I'll have to check it to be certain. It's not insignificant though.
>>
>>The air bags themselves can cause pretty serious head injuries. We keep the airbags in the car
>>because even with their danger, they're better than nothing at all.
>>
>>Seat belts contribute very little in preventing head injuries from off center crashes (where
>>most auto crahs head injuries occur IIRC). A hit from the side can cause driver or passenger
>>head to slam into the side window, door post or windshield pillar. Seat belts don't really help
>>in that case.
>
>
> True, but most auto crashes are a frontal impact where the shoulder belts *do* help.

IIRC, the Insurance Institute started doing their own offset collisions (as opposed to mere frontal
collisions) specifically because they are the most common kind of collision. It's not that common
for two cars to meet _perfectly_ head on!

>
>
>
>>If your car has side impact air bags, that will help, but those are still mostly on high end
>>models, or are an expensive option.

... and can kill kids! Helmets on car occupants would be much less likely to kill.

>>
>>But if they would be useful in a car, why not use one? Or is an auto head injury just an
>>accepted part of driving's dangers, while on a bike, something totally unacceptable, to be
>>avoided at all costs?
>
>
> No, to both, but it's somewhat more likely on a bike than in a car.

Show us the data!

--
Frank Krygowski
 
David Kerber wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>David Kerber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe it can easily be shown that on a per hour basis cycling on the road is significantly
>>>(statistically speaking) more dangerous than walking on the sidewalk or moving around the house.
>>
>>If it "can easily be shown," then please, _do_ show us! And if you don't mind, give us the actual
>>per-hour risk numbers for "cycling on the road."
>>
>>One of the papers I've been citing has such comparative data. Needless to say, it disagrees with
>>you. But I'll be interested in what you come up with!
>
>
> I have checked most (not all, admittedly) of the references you have cited, and none of them broke
> down the data enough to confirm or deny my opinion above: specifically cycling *on the road*
> versus walking *on the sidewalk*. I am willing to be proven wrong, but haven't yet seen the data
> to do so.

IOW, it really can't "easily be shown!"

But keep in mind, the sidewalk isn't the problem for pedestrians. It's the crosswalk. One has to
cross the street eventually to get nearly anywhere, and crosswalks are where pedestrians get injured
or killed. Sure, some are hit mid-block (including the one I saw get hit hard), but that's actually
less common than being hit while crossing properly.

--
Frank Krygowski
 
On 23 Oct 2003 11:17:41 +0950, Can <[email protected]> from
[email protected] wrote:

>though I was wearing one when I broke my collar bone last week, and when I tore a quarter sized
>hole through my elbow joint, and pulled the muscles off my bones a few months ago... I am
>considering buying some armor from my chest to fingers and hip to toes, to prevent me from testing
>the resources allotted to the health insurance-less requiring substantial medical help. On average
>I really really enjoy cycing, though I am having quite a blow to my enthusiasm by spending so much
>time in convelescence.

Perhaps you shoudl learn to ride mo' betta .... Anyone who crashes more than me needs some help.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Nipples, dimples, knuckles, NICKLES,
wrinkles, pimples!!
 
I've almost always worn a helmet, since a bike shop employee talked me into getting one about 14
years ago. I've had only one incident where it definitely protected me. Riding along, a small rock
came flying out from behind some bushes and hit me squarely in the front center of the helmet. I was
startled, but barely wobbled. I came around a curve, and saw the explanation. A kid was in his
driveway, throwing up bits of gravel and hitting them with a baseball bat. He couldn't have seen me
from where he was, but he probably knew that some of them were going into the road.

Which doesn't prove anything of course, just rambling.

Tried posting this once before, but looks like Google lost it.

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> No, my worst injury ever was a head injury. I was off-road, and took a dive; one side of my face
> was torn up, and I needed stitches in my eyelid. A helmet, through it's thickness, would have
> offset that injury just enough so it wouldn't have bothered my eye -- and I would have been able
> to keep riding and not go to the emergency room. Afterwards, my eye crusted up with icky pus and
> stuff for a few weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.