For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a
helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so
(of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from
dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling
30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.
You're worse than a christian and that means a lot coming from me
because I normally reserve all my contempt for people that pray and
believe in higher powered beings while they continually fuck this
planet into the toilet with their 18 kids and counting families.
Now fuck off before I put some effort into finding out exactly who the
fuck you are.
>In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
>data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
>injured.
>
>Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The actual data source might be useful:
<http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
It's not clear whether you're screeching at me because you think I've
made a case for mandatory helmet law or whether you're screeching at
me because you think I've made a case against a mandatory helmet law.
I haven't done either. I've just provided some honest numbers on which
policymakers, if interested, can make a decision, and cyclists, if
interested, can inform themselves. If you don't want to be informed,
pass by on the other side of the street. No one forces you to read
statistics that give you such heartburn.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework
Thanks. I have it but your reference made me take another look.
Every cyclist who pronounces on road safety should have a copy. Among
other street myths knocked on the head is the one about intersections
being the most dangerous places a cyclist goes. "Pedalcyclist
fatalities occurred more frequently ... at non-intersection locations
(64%)". Oops.
Andre Jute
"The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day,
1898." -- Ralph Stein in "Vintage and Classic Cars", Bantam Books,
1977
Plonk.
--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.cycletourist.com
*****************************
Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and feel the
sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."
"No, thank you. I have my own hat."
"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."
"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."
"No, thank you."
"No." "No." "No."
===============
I like your passion, Mike. But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law; I've merely presented an honest
account of the New York cycling fatalities and serious accidents study
to counter the anti-helmet zealots' lies about it. Others can make of
it what they want.
Andre Jute
"Not only people, but apply it to cyclists too!" --Nexus7
<ac2...@gmail.com>
********
> >http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7man...
Most deadly, yes. Most dangerous, no. While 64% percent of all
_fatalities_ were in "nonintersection" locations, 62% of all _crashes_
occur in intersections.
[Source: 2008 Traffic Safety Facts FARS/GES Annual Report (Final
Edition) http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf]
So intersections are more dangerous for bicyclists.
Also note that "nonintersection" crashes generally include mid-block
roll-out, wrong way cycling, cycling without lights in the dark, and
places where MUPs intersect roadways. Bike lanes don't increase
safety in any of these situations.
-Brian
I take your distinction, Brian.
> Also note that "nonintersection" crashes generally include mid-block
> roll-out, wrong way cycling, cycling without lights in the dark, and
> places where MUPs intersect roadways.
This is a law enforcement problem,
> Bike lanes don't increase
> safety in any of these situations.
I'll analyze vehicular cycling if those wrongoes irritate me any
further <g>. Meanwhile thanks for making your point courteously; most
refreshing.
Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Hmmm. Merely practicing the rhetoric I'll print on hats and caps to be worn
in lieu of mandated headwear. I'll make a note in the log... 2006 Columbia
Crest Grand Estates Cab, nicely round with a nutty finish; a bit long on sap
and self wind. It started as a simple missive pointing out the equivalence
of hats and shoes. Regulation is not needed for near 100% use. Some even
sleep wearing them.
All the same, "Just say NO, with no apology."
True, but they still result in crashes that are reflected in the
statistics; take them out and intersection become relatively even more
dangerous. And aren't _all_ car-bike crashes ultimately law
enforcement problems?
-Brian
It is every American's RESPONSIBILITY, not simply privilege, to choose what
they do, wear, or how they act. It was Andre's hard work, perseverance,
insights, and acumen that make it likely we will choose wisely and well what
we wear on our heads when we bicycle.
> aren't _all_ car-bike crashes ultimately law
> enforcement problems?
In the States perhaps, where motorists believe very aggressively
indeed that cyclists are the interlopers (and some cyclists believe
pedestrians are the interlopers, but we can take that up another day)
and are generally presumed by both society at large and the courts to
be in the right unless the cyclist can prove otherwise, which is hard
when he is dead. In more cooperative societies with a bike culture, a
motorist who hits a cyclist is presumed at fault unless he can prove
otherwise. Placing the onus of care on the vehicle operator who is
less vulnerable and in command of more force makes sound sense.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
> It was Andre's hard work, perseverance,
> insights, and acumen that make it likely we will choose wisely and well what
> we wear on our heads when we bicycle.
Why, thank you, Mike. What more can any cyclist ask than to serve his
fellow cyclists?
Andre Jute
Cyclist
> It is every American's RESPONSIBILITY, not simply privilege, to choose
> what they do, wear, or how they act.
Clearly not a Democrat. <eg>
{Hugh Jass Memorial Snip}