NHTSA bicycle safety video

[mark]

Found this on uk.rec.cycling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4

I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
about helmets for my taste.

mark

 

[Bill Sornson]

mark wrote:
> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.

Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.

Bill "the chick (Selene Yeager?)'s a babe" S.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>mark wrote:
>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>
>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
>Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.

"The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
than wearing a helmet!

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[landotter]

On Feb 27, 9:19 pm, Patrick Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >mark wrote:
> >> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> >> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> >> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
> >Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> "The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
> long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
> because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
> ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
> traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
> using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
> than wearing a helmet!

No ****. I'm sick to death of the helmet panaceaists. I'd rather they
just stated the facts about lids, that they can slightly reduce the
force of impact (by 3mph, last I checked) and prevent some
lacerations. That would be a reality check, bringing them down from
the status of "magic beanie" to "moderate injury prevention device".

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 7:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> mark wrote:
> > Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> > I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
> > enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>
> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.

I timed about 40 seconds on helmets. Not a lot out of the 7:24, but
they gave helmets at least three times the coverage they gave to any
other specific issue. As an example, they gave about 10 seconds to
talking about lights. Are helmets four times as important as lights?
And are they _really_ "the single most important piece of safety
equipment you can use"? More than, say, brakes?

At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.

If we can get them to include data on how much good helmets _really_
have made in large, real-world populations, we'd have something. But
then, they'd have to admit they're essentially worthless!

Otherwise, pretty good video.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:20:49 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> mark wrote:
>>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>>
>>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>>
>> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> "The single most important thing" you can do for your safety? So as
> long as you wear a helmet, you can ignore the rest of the video,
> because you're safer than someone who doesn't wear a helmet, doesn't
> ride with traffic, doesn't avoid the door zone, doesn't watch out for
> traffic pulling into or out of driveways?? Silly me, here I thought
> using your noggin and watching where you're going were more important
> than wearing a helmet!

The video was very basic, thus directed at novice cyclists. While one may
quibble with that one little sentence, I don't think a 30-second primer on
proper helmet fit out of a nearly 8-minute presentation is "too
enthusiastic" at all. (Unless one is ideologically anti-lid, that is.) As
for the door zone and other issues, they covered them rather well I
thougtht.

And again, the woman was a babe.

Bill S.

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>
>At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
>head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
>doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>

Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
"progress".

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 11:48 pm, "landotter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> No ****. I'm sick to death of the helmet panaceaists. I'd rather they
> just stated the facts about lids, that they can slightly reduce the
> force of impact (by 3mph, last I checked) and prevent some
> lacerations. That would be a reality check, bringing them down from
> the status of "magic beanie" to "moderate injury prevention device".


I'm curious where the 3mph thing comes from, and what type of helmet
it refers to. My main issue with most helmets has always been
coverage, and how much of your head (not to mention face) a normal
bike helmet leaves exposed. BMX/skate style helmets cover the back of
the head far better than traditional helmets, and full-face obviously
covers even more. I'd be shocked if my BMX & full-face helmets only
reduced the impact by 3mph; they've both been exposed to many somewhat
severe hits and seemed to do their job quite nicely. I'd guess they
were using the ultra-light all foam helmets in the tests that produced
3mph?


Dan "the guy with the helmet that never fits in" K

 

[Mike A Schwab]

Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists

http://bikelib.org/
http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm

On Feb 27, 4:02 pm, mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
> about helmets for my taste.
>
> mark

 

[landotter]

On Feb 28, 6:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> >At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
> >head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
> >doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>
> Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
> "progress".

Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
stupidity. On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
test, I'd have no problem with that.

Wrong way riding, lighting, turn signaling, stopping for lights and
signs, yielding when you don't have the right of way--any single one
of these basic road rules is far far more important than the mild
protection a lid will give to a small portion of your body in the
event of a tumble.

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 Feb 2007 08:33:59 -0800, "landotter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 28, 6:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2007 22:15:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
>> >head injuries by 85%. This is one of very few bike safety pieces that
>> >doesn't make that claim. Perhaps slow progress is being made.
>>
>> Noting the steady increase in MHL's in the USofA, one cannot call that
>> "progress".
>
>Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
>stupidity.

Good luck; the last time I checked into it, there were 37 states in
the US where there are MHLs (states including DofC and those entities
more properly known as commonwealths).

You could move to the UK; they have a much more rational view of the
value of cycle helmets...

 

[mark]

Thanks for the links, I'm going to pass them on to local law enforcement.

mark

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:02:29 +0000, mark wrote:

> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>
> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too enthusiastic
> about helmets for my taste.

A big nitpick -- if they were going to address quick releases at all, they
should have done a much better job.

I guess we're supposed to be enthusiastic about such projects, but I don't
think it was all that great. About half of it was fine, half of it not
well thought out, and overall just plain boring and uninspired. I know
twelve year olds who make much better videos.

Sorry.

Matt O.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Mike A Schwab wrote:

> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>
> http://bikelib.org/
> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>

Mike,

I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?

Wayne

 

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>
>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>
>> http://bikelib.org/
>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>
>
> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?

(625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
under the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway; or
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make
it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle
and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a oneway
highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride
as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
(Source: P.A. 83549.)

<http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc>


Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:

(625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
Sec. 1179. Roadway.
That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
such roadways collectively.
(Source: P.A. 761586.)

In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides legal
justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the shoulder.
I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and I'm
perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email protected]
(_)/ (_)

 

[Wayne Pein]

OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
roadways -Riding on roadways
and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
roadway at less than the normal speed
of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
shall ride as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under
the following situations: …


Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.

The reason I bring this up is because the LIB video, as well as other
sources of Illinois safety information I found, places emphasis on
micromanaging bicycle drivers' lateral position.

Wayne

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2007-02-28, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike A Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a video by the League of Illinois bicyclists
>>>
>>> http://bikelib.org/
>>> http://bikelib.org/video/index.htm
>>>
>>
>> I've tried to find the exact wording of the Illinois "as far right as
>> practicable" statute but could not. Do you have a citation?
>
> (625 ILCS 5/11-1505) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 111505)
> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
> roadways Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. (a) Any person
> operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at
> less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place
> and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as
> practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway except
> under the following situations:
> 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal
> cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
> 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> private road or driveway; or
> 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but
> not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving
> vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians,
> animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make
> it unsafe to continue along the righthand curb or edge. For
> purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a
> lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle
> and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
> (b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a
> oneway
> highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride
> as near the lefthand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
> (Source: P.A. 83549.)
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/2mrklc>
>
>
> Also note that "roadway" has a special definition under Illinois law:
>
> (625 ILCS 5/1179) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1179)
> Sec. 1179. Roadway.
> That portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for
> vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a
> highway includes two or more separate roadways the term "roadway" as
> used herein shall refer to any such roadway separately but not to all
> such roadways collectively.
> (Source: P.A. 761586.)
>
> In particular, the exclusion of shoulders from the "roadway" provides
> legal
> justification for riding in the travel lanes, rather than off on the
> shoulder.
> I've never tested this with anyone in an authority position, however, and
> I'm
> perfectly using paved shoulders in some circumstances.

Sounds pretty sane to me.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3476 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK. I found the relavent Illinois statute.
>
> Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on
> roadways -Riding on roadways
> and bicycle paths.
> (a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway
> at less than the normal speed
> of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing
> shall ride as close as
> practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the
> following situations: …
>
>
> Like in most states, it's a discriminatory law that should be repealed.
>
> The reason I bring this up is because the LIB video, as well as other
> sources of Illinois safety information I found, places emphasis on
> micromanaging bicycle drivers' lateral position.

You just made a blanket statement without any supporting info or reasoning.
Hell, let's do away barring Heavy Trucks from downtown streets or how about
letting the cars go nellie ***** regardless if they are on the right or the
left of the divider. I ride like the law suggests and have a hell of a lot
less ****** of 4 wheelers at me. And roadrage to another car might be a
minor collision but there is nothing minor about a collision between a
bicyclist and a car. Well, at least not for the cyclists.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3476 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

 

[David L. Johnson]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:20 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> mark wrote:
>>> Found this on uk.rec.cycling:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4
>>> I thought it was quite good, although they got a little too
>>> enthusiastic about helmets for my taste.
>> Too enthusiastic? They gave the subject about 30 seconds.
>
> I timed about 40 seconds on helmets. Not a lot out of the 7:24, but
> they gave helmets at least three times the coverage they gave to any
> other specific issue. As an example, they gave about 10 seconds to
> talking about lights. Are helmets four times as important as lights?

What percentage of the audience of such a video would ride at night?

> And are they _really_ "the single most important piece of safety
> equipment you can use"? More than, say, brakes?

Of course not, but the media would never be able to say that.
>
> At least, they didn't make the ridiculous claim that helmets reduce
> head injuries by 85%.

Actually, if you consider that most accidents are minor falls, wearing
gloves probably reduces injuries by 85%.

--

David L. Johnson

You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what canst
thou say? -- George Fox.

 

[David L. Johnson]

landotter wrote:

> Ugh. I'd literally move to a different city than comply with such
> stupidity.

I don't find that wearing a foam hat is stupidity. What is stupid is
the suggestion that it, and it alone, would protect me from a drunken
fool driving a Hummer straight at me.

> On the other hand, if a local ordinance required me to
> register my bike and get a $50 "cycling license" after passing a road
> test, I'd have no problem with that.

$25, and I'll sign on.

--

David L. Johnson

When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that
your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ