helmet thoughts

Quoted message said:

If "My balaclava saved my life" sounds as rude to you as "you ain't got
no brains," we're going to have to disagree on that judgement.

Yep, I do. Because the tone creates rudeness as much as the specific
words.

I think both are inappropriate.

Perhaps it's my background of academic training but I have been
involved in many, many arguments over data and its best interpretation
which have not devolved into name calling or snide remarks. Disageement
often leads to more critical thining by both parties and sometimes to a
better positoin which is different from any of the starting ones.

gds said:

There is no excuse to be rude. But I would point out that to some who
are trying to have a serius discussion that comments such as "why not
mandate walking helmets" can also be considered rude.

May I ask why you feel such a comment to be rude?
It seems to me that if I'm going to wear a helmet for some activities
and not for others then I should have some rational criteria to decide
when it would be most appropriate. Two that come to mind are the risk
of head injury of each activity and the relative inconvenience of
wearing a helmet while doing it.

E.g. let's consider these activities: 1) bicycling on paved roads, 2)
walking on sidewalks near roads, 3) walking up and down stairs, 4)
driving/riding in cars and 5) motorcycling. Based on the statistics
I've seen, the per hour risk of head injury is highest for the stair
climbing, next highest for motorcycling, then walking, and lowest for
road biking (although some figures show car riding to be pretty
similar. OTOH, the inconvenience factor is by far the highest for
stair climbing since it would require putting the helmet on and off so
often. I'd put inconvenience at about even for walking and cycling,
lower for motorcycling and lowest for car riding where there isn't any
overheating issue nor any problem with storage/security when going into
stores, etc.

So based on those two critieria I'd be most likely to consider helmet
wearing for motorcycling, next for walking on sidewalks, then for car
driving/riding, and last for bicycling or stair climbing.

It would also be nice to factor in the estimated effectiveness of
helmet use in the various activities, but unfortunately the study data
on this criterion varies widely (as seen in the numerous helmet
discussions here). Motorcycle and car helmets can be constructed to
absorb much more impact shock since they have fewer weight and heat
considerations. But that may be negated by the higher impact speeds
experienced in motorcycle accidents. OTOH, car accident head impacts
are secondary impacts with the interior of the car and therefore of
somewhat reduced magnitude. So my feeling is that car and pedestrian
helmets may have the greatest effectiveness with bike and motorcycle
helmets being less effective, but it would be good to have some better
studies of effectiveness. Still not clear why bicycling should rise as
high as number two among these five activities when deciding to use a
helmet based on these three criteria.

There is of course a fourth possible criterion to use, one which Frank
has mentioned in the past. That one is the current fashion trend which
indicates that one is likely to get odd stares and derisive comments
when wearing a helmet for activities 2, 3, and 4 whereas one is likely
to get some rude shouts (and tickets in some jursidictions) when
participating in activities 1 and 5 without a helmet.

gds said:

There is no excuse to be rude. But I would point out that to some who
are trying to have a serius discussion that comments such as "why not
mandate walking helmets" can also be considered rude. So, can " I fell
and I know my balaclava saved my life." Perhaps that is not the intent
but as the comments are ususally made so as to ridicule a pro helmet
argument it certainly can reasonably be taken as such. Such comments
appear in all the helemt threads.

They aren't really rude, as much as they are witless and dense. The
intent is to be both amusing and mildly derisive, though few people are
amused or derided.

peter said:

gds said:

There is no excuse to be rude. But I would point out that to some who
are trying to have a serius discussion that comments such as "why not
mandate walking helmets" can also be considered rude.

May I ask why you feel such a comment to be rude?

Because it is often presented in the context of being snide and
condesending.

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that if I'm going to wear a helmet for some activities
and not for others then I should have some rational criteria to decide
when it would be most appropriate. Two that come to mind are the risk
of head injury of each activity and the relative inconvenience of
wearing a helmet while doing it.

I agree.

Quoted message said:

E.g. let's consider these activities: 1) bicycling on paved roads, 2)
walking on sidewalks near roads, 3) walking up and down stairs, 4)
driving/riding in cars and 5) motorcycling. Based on the statistics
I've seen, the per hour risk of head injury is highest for the stair
climbing, next highest for motorcycling, then walking, and lowest for
road biking (although some figures show car riding to be pretty
similar. OTOH, the inconvenience factor is by far the highest for
stair climbing since it would require putting the helmet on and off so
often. I'd put inconvenience at about even for walking and cycling,
lower for motorcycling and lowest for car riding where there isn't any
overheating issue nor any problem with storage/security when going into
stores, etc.

So based on those two critieria I'd be most likely to consider helmet
wearing for motorcycling, next for walking on sidewalks, then for car
driving/riding, and last for bicycling or stair climbing.

It would also be nice to factor in the estimated effectiveness of
helmet use in the various activities, but unfortunately the study data
on this criterion varies widely (as seen in the numerous helmet
discussions here). Motorcycle and car helmets can be constructed to
absorb much more impact shock since they have fewer weight and heat
considerations. But that may be negated by the higher impact speeds
experienced in motorcycle accidents. OTOH, car accident head impacts
are secondary impacts with the interior of the car and therefore of
somewhat reduced magnitude. So my feeling is that car and pedestrian
helmets may have the greatest effectiveness with bike and motorcycle
helmets being less effective, but it would be good to have some better
studies of effectiveness. Still not clear why bicycling should rise as
high as number two among these five activities when deciding to use a
helmet based on these three criteria.

Again, I don't disagree with the concept that you present. However, I
do disagree with many of the statistics used to come to specific
conclusions.

But at a most fundamental logical level I also disagree with the
argument that "two wrongs (or however many) make a right."
So for me arguing that one should not do something - if that something
is the right thing to do- becasue there is something else that one
should do that they are not- just is not a good argument. "Don't
bother to quite smoking because you are overweight anyhow" is not a
compelling argument.

Why is cycling and easy target as you suggest? At least part of that
reason is that there are lots of folks that are convinced that helmets
do some good, combined with the relative low cost and comfort of modern
helmets.

If indeed walking on the sidewalk is "more dangerous" than cycling then
I believe there should be a serious debate on how to ameliorate that
situation. That is different from concluding youshouldn't do anything
about cycling safety unless and until you fix walking.

Quoted message said:

There is of course a fourth possible criterion to

comments

Quoted message said:

when wearing a helmet for activities 2, 3, and 4 whereas one is likely
to get some rude shouts (and tickets in some jursidictions) when
participating in activities 1 and 5 without a helmet.

True, but that fashion accpetance is driven by popular understanding of
risk-wheter right or wrong. 30 years ago you would never fnd a pro
hockey player wearing a helmet. But fashion and acceptance chaged with
greater understanding of the the risk and a lower tolerance for simply
accpeting whatever happened to them. I'm old enough to remember when no
one wore batting helmets. Now ther are base running helmets. And no one
makes fun of those that wear them. Do you think that would have been
the case in 1955?

gds said:

I'll not argue about how effective helmets might be--but what you
suggest will not help to understand that any better. Why? Because every
trip to the ER that was avoided by the use of helemts is not part of
the study.

I find it difficult to believe that wearing a helmet would keep
you out of the ER altogether even if it were effective enough
to prevent a brain injury.

If it saved you from having your head cracked open, I have to
believe you still ended up in the ER with a broken collar bone.

Count the ER visits of bicyclists with and without helmets. What
percent of them suffered brain trauma?

I know that I personally am a statistic for the dangers of not
wearing a helmet when an old beater bike of mine lost its front
fork just out of my driveway going about 5 mph.

My unhelmeted head hit the stem bolt tearing the skin just above
my right eye that required 15 stitches (and caused the loss of
my ability to raise the right eyebrow for a couple months!).

First question asked of me was "were you wearing a helmet?" My
"no" response initiated a lecture on the dangers of not wearing
a helmet, even though my injury was the result of an impact coming
from *below* the level of where a properly worn helmet would be.
A helmet would have made no difference whatsoever.

Although I'm a statistic for a head injury while not wearing a
helmet, I am NOT a statistic for suffering brain trauma while
not wearing one.

SMH

Stephen Harding said:

I find it difficult to believe that wearing a helmet would keep
you out of the ER altogether even if it were effective enough
to prevent a brain injury.

I don't find it hard to believe. But I really don't know the extent
because I have not seen a proper prospective poulation based study that
addressed the issue.

Quoted message said:

If it saved you from having your head cracked open, I have to
believe you still ended up in the ER with a broken collar bone.

Why? Broken collarbones are usually caused by "stiffarming" the ground
sending the shock force up the rigid arm and thus breaking the
collarbone. I've seen many broken collarbones happen without the head
striking anything.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

My unhelmeted head hit the stem bolt tearing the skin just above
my right eye that required 15 stitches (and caused the loss of
my ability to raise the right eyebrow for a couple months!).

First question asked of me was "were you wearing a helmet?" My
"no" response initiated a lecture on the dangers of not wearing
a helmet, even though my injury was the result of an impact coming
from *below* the level of where a properly worn helmet would be.
A helmet would have made no difference whatsoever.

Although I'm a statistic for a head injury while not wearing a
helmet, I am NOT a statistic for suffering brain trauma while
not wearing one.

Perhaps the lecture was an expression of the clinician's beliefs about
helmet use which was unrelated to the specifics of your injury. Those
are independent issues.

cause of death - cerebral hemmorage.

Sorry, I am not going to collect statistics for you. If you don't
want to wear a helmet, that's gonna be your problem and your
family's.

I guess I'll just keep my mouth (mouse) shut about this from now
on. This is worse than preaching to smokers about quitting.

~Rob

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: ~R wrote:
: >
: > Wear your damn helmets. I work in the ER of a trauma center
and I
: > hate to see people's families cry when doctors tell them
their
: > loved one is dead or a vegetable because he/she didn't wear a
: > helmet.
:
: This sounds like a fiction story to me. But if you claim it's
not, do
: this for the next year, please:
:
: Carry a notebook at work. Every time you hear the doctors tell
someone
: that about their loved one, note down the date, and note down
the cause
: of the brain damage. Do this faithfully.
:
: Report back in a year and give us the totals that were due to
riding
: inside cars, and due to falls around the home, and due to
cycling.
:
: You'll almost certainly find that your local data matches
national
: data: That serious head injuries due to cycling are roughly 1%
of the
: total, probably less.
:
: When others have made the same sort of statements you make
above,
: they've either admitted what I say is true, or they've slunk
away
: without responding.
:
: So please, do keep that notebook in your pocket and keep
accurate
: records. It'll be worth it, even though I know it'll be some
trouble.
: (For one thing, you'll have to put down your mop while you
write.)
:
: - Frank Krygowski
:

This is the best reply ever. Thank you, Eric.

Lets rest this discussion. Sorry I popped up and started it. I
should have remained in hibernation till spring.

My apologies.

~Rob

"Eric Babula" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
: "~R" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:SDbyf.7416$ZA2.7235
: @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
:
: > If you have a brain, you realize helmet wearing is common
sense
: > and you wear one to protect your brain.
: >
: > If you 'ain't gots no brains', you don't wear a helmet and it
: > doesn't matter.
: >
: > ~Rob
: >
: >
:
: Man! What's with all the helmet posts of late???
:
: If you wanna wear one, wear one.
:
: If you don't wanna wear one, don't wear one.
:
: If it's the law to wear one in your area, wear it.
:
: If you don't like the law, do something to change it.
:
: Quit whining! And, quit trying to convince others that your way
is the
: only way.
:
: --
: Eric Babula
: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
:
: Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.
:

~R said:

Sorry, I am not going to collect statistics for you.

I'm not surprised! Again, your reaction is EXACTLY the same as
everyone else who has made your statements. When asked for real
information, they evaporate ... except for one courageous psychologist,
who admitted that yes, only 1% of his brain injury patients were
cyclists, just as I said.

Oh, the other bit of confirmation came from a woman in our bike club
who was a full-time brain injury rehabilitation specialist. She, too,
confirmed that in seven years of full time work, only one of her
patients was injured while cycling. And since he was a racer, she
assumed he had worn a helmet.

Quoted message said:

If you don't
want to wear a helmet, that's gonna be your problem and your
family's.

It's not been a problem in all my 58 years. And since there are at
least 1000 years of cycling per serious brain injury, I think the odds
will be with me for several more lifetimes.

Quoted message said:

I guess I'll just keep my mouth (mouse) shut about this from now
on.

Opening one's mouth to demonstrate ignorance is seldom a good idea.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For what definition of 'risk?'

Fatalities per million hours activity.

Did the authors define 'risk' that
narrowly, or are you defining it that
narrowly? IOW, did the authors include
estimates for injury rates as well, and
what did those say.

Robert

Hey Tom Keats

it sounds like you have already had a head injury, Cars are not the
only reason that people get hurt on bicycles, what about the many off
road riders? I do not care if YOU wear a helmet or not but what I care
about is that if you get hurt that you expect my tax money to pay Your
doctor bills why should others pay for your right to not wear a helmet.
Also why did you not answer Rob when he asked you about other ways to
get hurt other than a car? Don't run away scared now! I guess you are
not able to prove your point.

In article <[email hidden]>,

mhk said:

Hey Tom Keats

it sounds like you have already had a head injury,

Thank you for your diagnosis; I'll take it for what it's worth.

Quoted message said:

Cars are not the
only reason that people get hurt on bicycles, what about the many off
road riders?

They know what to do, including wearing helmets --
often full-face ones. They often wear body armour, too.

Quoted message said:

I do not care if YOU wear a helmet or not but what I care
about is that if you get hurt that you expect my tax money to pay Your
doctor bills

So you're a fellow Canadian?

Quoted message said:

why should others pay for your right to not wear a helmet.

Actually I have no such right.

Quoted message said:

Also why did you not answer Rob when he asked you about other ways to
get hurt other than a car?

You obviously haven't read the whole thread.

Quoted message said:

Don't run away scared now! I guess you are
not able to prove your point.

I think the people who most get on the defensive
about "my point" are drivers.

Have a nice day, and try not to hit anybody with
your car -- even if they're wearing a helmet.

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

gds said:

Stephen Harding said:

If it saved you from having your head cracked open, I have to
believe you still ended up in the ER with a broken collar bone.

Why? Broken collarbones are usually caused by "stiffarming" the ground
sending the shock force up the rigid arm and thus breaking the
collarbone. I've seen many broken collarbones happen without the head
striking anything.

Indeed, but attempting to break your fall happens whether you wear
a helmet or not.

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.

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.

SMH

mhk said:

it sounds like you have already had a head injury, Cars are not the
only reason that people get hurt on bicycles, what about the many off
road riders? I do not care if YOU wear a helmet or not but what I care
about is that if you get hurt that you expect my tax money to pay Your
doctor bills why should others pay for your right to not wear a helmet.
Also why did you not answer Rob when he asked you about other ways to
get hurt other than a car? Don't run away scared now! I guess you are
not able to prove your point.

But you're not worried about your tax dollars going to pay for
head injuries incurred while driving a car? Or walking? Or any
number of other activities where a helmet might prevent a serious
head injury, or one lessened by its use?

Only head injuries incurred while biking?

Would it be OK with you if someone didn't wear a helmet as long
as they had health insurance?

SMH

"~R" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

This is the best reply ever. Thank you, Eric.

Lets rest this discussion. Sorry I popped up and started it. I
should have remained in hibernation till spring.

My apologies.

~Rob

No need to stay in hibernation, Rob. And, I certainly hope you didn't
feel I was picking on you in particular. This debate has been going on
forever, and will forever continue. I just wish people would drop the
helmet issue, cuz it doesn't seem that either side will ever "win".

Why can't we all just get along?

But, seriously, Rob - don't go back into hibernation. Ride your bike.
Keep coming back to RBM and offer thoughts, questions, ideas, stories or
whatever. We don't want you to leave!

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Individual commitment to a group effort: that is what makes a team work,
a company work, a society work, a civilization work. - Vince Lombardi

OK Frank, clearly we view the world differently.

You seem to feel very put upon by almost everything, have very strong
views of the "worth" of the views of recreatinal cyclists vs.
commuters, and feel that studies results are "bulletproof" in the face
of methodological limitations and the existance of contrary findings.

And of course you are very sure you are right.

I believe you to be sincere in your beliefs and I also respect that you
actually go out and try to do something about the issues about which
you feel so strongly. However, I also believe that the combination of
your prejudices and condescending attitude towards those that do not
believe as firmly as you do will, I think, serve only to limit your
effectiveness.

Great thing about this country, you are free to proceed as you think
best.

gds said:

OK Frank, clearly we view the world differently.

Perhaps so. I tend to look on it as a learning opportunity.

Quoted message said:

You seem to feel very put upon by almost everything...

?? For a rather limited definition of "everything." ( I think you're
looking at a small number of issues.)

Quoted message said:

... have very strong
views of the "worth" of the views of recreatinal cyclists vs.
commuters...

Well, yes, for certain purposes. Not for others, it should be obvious.

Quoted message said:

... and feel that studies results are "bulletproof" in the face
of methodological limitations and the existance of contrary findings.

Once again, you avoid being specific!

Assuming you're talking about the Robinson paper I cited and its proof
of significant reductions in riding after MHLs: What _specific_
methodological limitation do you see there?

Do you think the trained observers doing the counts were somehow
greatly in error? Or do you think the automatic counting machines were
somehow mis-counting cyclists? Or do you think the people responding
to telephone surveys were lying? (Actually, ISTM you need to claiming
all _three_ of those things!)

Quoted message said:

And of course you are very sure you are right.

I've studied this for probably ten years now. Due to my study of
literally reams of actual data, my viewpoint changed completely. I
learned a lot. And yes, I think that as a result of that study (and
changing my mind) I am now right. That seems to happen to most people
who actually study this issue. They tend to become helmet skeptics.

Again, I tend to look on life as a learning opportunity. And I'm a big
believer in study and education. What can I say?

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

gds said:

OK Frank, clearly we view the world differently.

Perhaps so. I tend to look on it as a learning opportunity.

Again an attempt to argue by "putting down" the other person, in this
case by implying I am not interested in learning. This does not
strengthen your position and goes back to what I consider to be rude.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You seem to feel very put upon by almost everything...

?? For a rather limited definition of "everything." ( I think you're
looking at a small number of issues.)

But include the issue under discussion as well as others that you bring
up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... have very strong
views of the "worth" of the views of recreatinal cyclists vs.
commuters...

Well, yes, for certain purposes. Not for others, it should be obvious.

Not to me. It seems that you hae myriad snide comments about folks that
wear lycra, or worse a helmet, and simply want to have fun. You imply a
moral superiority to folks who use thier bikes to go to the grocery or
library. That's How I read what you write.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... and feel that studies results are "bulletproof" in the face
of methodological limitations and the existance of contrary findings.

Once again, you avoid being specific!

Assuming you're talking about the Robinson paper I cited and its proof
of significant reductions in riding after MHLs: What _specific_
methodological limitation do you see there?

Do you think the trained observers doing the counts were somehow
greatly in error? Or do you think the automatic counting machines were
somehow mis-counting cyclists? Or do you think the people responding
to telephone surveys were lying? (Actually, ISTM you need to claiming
all _three_ of those things!)

And here you go with changing the topic again. No where will you see me
say anything about the MHL studies. The discussion is about helmet
efficacy not compulsion. But you keep throwing up compulsion.

What I have said that in the US there have periods of growth in cycling
that have coincided with growth in helmet use. To be fair there are
articles that argue both ways on this. But that is still very different
from whatever the MHL studies found in Oceana.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course you are very sure you are right.

I've studied this for probably ten years now. Due to my study of
literally reams of actual data, my viewpoint changed completely. I
learned a lot. And yes, I think that as a result of that study (and
changing my mind) I am now right. That seems to happen to most people
who actually study this issue. They tend to become helmet skeptics.

Of course that depends on yor meaning of "skeptic." I'm skeptical in
the sense that I don't believe that the research gives a clear answer
to the question of helmet efficacy. If that is what you mean I agree.

But if you take "skeptic" to mean a belief that helmets are definitely
worthless I think you will find yourself in the vast minority of folks
looking at the studies.

Of course we can't tell by counting the posters here or anywhere else.
Clearly the self selection of posters is such that we are typical of
everyone.

Quoted message said:

Again, I tend to look on life as a learning opportunity. And I'm a big
believer in study and education. What can I say?

I have always tried to avoid any ad hominum arguments, direct or
implied. But you seem to find the need to resort to them. Says
something about the strength of your underlying argument.

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

Quoted message said:

gds said:

OK Frank, clearly we view the world differently.

Perhaps so. I tend to look on it as a learning opportunity.

Again an attempt to argue by "putting down" the other person, in this
case by implying I am not interested in learning. This does not
strengthen your position and goes back to what I consider to be rude.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You seem to feel very put upon by almost everything...

?? For a rather limited definition of "everything." ( I think you're
looking at a small number of issues.)

But include the issue under discussion as well as others that you bring
up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... have very strong
views of the "worth" of the views of recreatinal cyclists vs.
commuters...

Well, yes, for certain purposes. Not for others, it should be obvious.

Not to me. It seems that you hae myriad snide comments about folks that
wear lycra, or worse a helmet, and simply want to have fun. You imply a
moral superiority to folks who use thier bikes to go to the grocery or
library. That's How I read what you write.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... and feel that studies results are "bulletproof" in the face
of methodological limitations and the existance of contrary findings.

Once again, you avoid being specific!

Assuming you're talking about the Robinson paper I cited and its proof
of significant reductions in riding after MHLs: What _specific_
methodological limitation do you see there?

Do you think the trained observers doing the counts were somehow
greatly in error? Or do you think the automatic counting machines were
somehow mis-counting cyclists? Or do you think the people responding
to telephone surveys were lying? (Actually, ISTM you need to claiming
all _three_ of those things!)

And here you go with changing the topic again. No where will you see me
say anything about the MHL studies. The discussion is about helmet
efficacy not compulsion. But you keep throwing up compulsion.

What I have said that in the US there have periods of growth in cycling
that have coincided with growth in helmet use. To be fair there are
articles that argue both ways on this. But that is still very different
from whatever the MHL studies found in Oceana.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And of course you are very sure you are right.

I've studied this for probably ten years now. Due to my study of
literally reams of actual data, my viewpoint changed completely. I
learned a lot. And yes, I think that as a result of that study (and
changing my mind) I am now right. That seems to happen to most people
who actually study this issue. They tend to become helmet skeptics.

Of course that depends on yor meaning of "skeptic." I'm skeptical in
the sense that I don't believe that the research gives a clear answer
to the question of helmet efficacy. If that is what you mean I agree.

But if you take "skeptic" to mean a belief that helmets are definitely
worthless I think you will find yourself in the vast minority of folks
looking at the studies.

Of course we can't tell by counting the posters here or anywhere else.
Clearly the self selection of posters is such that we are typical of
everyone.

Quoted message said:

Again, I tend to look on life as a learning opportunity. And I'm a big
believer in study and education. What can I say?

I have always tried to avoid any ad hominum arguments, direct or
implied. But you seem to find the need to resort to them. Says
something about the strength of your underlying argument.

Gary, you're drowning here. Frank responded to your ad hominem arguments
("You seem to feel very put upon by almost everything", "And of course
you are very sure you are right"😉 with statements about himself ("I tend
to look on it as a learning activity"😉. You then call these ad hominem
attacks on you, which did not occur to me until you mentioned it. At
worst, its a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it".

Cut it out. You have been providing heat but no light while Frank, who
has done his homework, is citing literature. You are only looking worse
with each fact-free attempt at rebuttal.

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.

Robert