avag...@gmail.com

unread,

May 10, 2016, 11:52:52 AM5/10/16

to

brain dead

https://www.google.com/#q=pedestrians+injured+walking+across+the+street

sms

unread,

May 10, 2016, 12:29:46 PM5/10/16

to

On 5/9/2016 8:58 PM, James wrote:
> What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
> interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
> injury than cyclists in the EU.
>
> I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
> may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
> a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
> words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
> discrimination.

Not safe to say that at all. The reason pedestrians have a higher
incidence of head injuries than cyclists could be because of the lack of
helmets for pedestrians. Or it could be the number of each type of road
user since the study doesn't appear to correct for the relative numbers
of each or the time each spends on the road. That study is rather
worthless for trying to say whether it's safer to cycle or walk.

Andre Jute

unread,

May 10, 2016, 1:15:54 PM5/10/16

to

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:43:57 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> me. For example, the Phillips Report: National Report on Traumatic
> Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland, 2008 (by the Traumatic Brain
> Injury Research Group) makes it clear that cycling is a minor
> contributor to serious TBI.
>
> Not that the report comes out and says so; that would be a violation of
> some unwritten "must make cycling sound dangerous" rule in the TBI
> community. But table 6.1 shows that road users are just 22% of the TBI
> problem,

> - Frank Krygowski

You really are, statistically speaking, an eejit, as we say here in Ireland because we're too polite to call even you, Frank Krygowski, a moron.

Yo, dickhead, listen up. In ireland the cyclists amount to a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. In my environment I know all of them by name, That cyclists make up 22% of Traumatic Brain Injuries is therefore a horribly disproportionate number.

In fact, last year or the year before I was standing with a surgeon at a window in University Hospital in Cork, looking out on a busy 8-lane junction between the hospital gates and a shopping mall, and, knowing that I'm a cyclist, when he saw a cyclist, he quipped, "Here comes an organ donor."

I really wish, Franki-boy, that you would stop putting yourself forward as Ohio's resident expert on Ireland and all things Irish. You're not. You don't know shit. You're Ohio's Polack Ass on every subject under the sun.

Sincerely,

Andre Jute
Lord, save me from the idiotic opinions of jumped-up welders

Andre Jute

unread,

May 10, 2016, 1:21:34 PM5/10/16

to

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 4:58:38 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>
> http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/stories/ge/Publications/Papers-Conferences/geyannis-pc235.pdf
>
> --
> JS

First thing, huge respect to these researchers for making sense of really disparate data: "The number of bicycles per thousand inhabitants ranges from 52 in the Czech Republic to 1.000 in the Netherlands. What differs though considerably from one country to another is the way in which the bicycle is used. Some cyclists use it every day, as a means of transport, while others do so only occasionally (ECMT, 2000) and additionally, significant differences are noted in the driving behavior and culture of the other road users (cyclists are still often overlooked), as well as in the cycling infrastructure among the countries."

Andre Jute
Statistics is the art of the possible

John B.

unread,

May 10, 2016, 9:13:50 PM5/10/16

to

Not to question Pucher's findings, but is a rate per kilometer
traveled an accurate method of comparing an activity where speeds are,
say 30 Km./Hr. versus an activity where travel is, Oh say 5 Km. W/Hr.
Wouldn't a more accurate comparison be the length of time an activity
is engaged in?
--
cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 11, 2016, 12:21:08 AM5/11/16

to

As mentioned before, there are many ways of comparing these things.
Which way is most appropriate may depend on one's objectives - and I'm
talking about legitimate objectives, not (say) the objective of selling
or mandating a questionable retail product.

Briefly, if one is comparing the safety of various means of getting from
one place to another, then "per km" data may be most reasonable -
assuming, of course, that the geography is appropriate. There's no
point in comparing, say, the safety of intercontinental flights with
that of driving to the grocery store; they don't compete. Similarly,
driving vs. cycling comparisons should exclude most freeway miles for
cars. But I think walking and cycling are pretty comparable. (And BTW,
if we adopt the strategy of some "Danger! Danger!" freaks and say only
the very safest method is acceptable, then all car drivers should be
made to switch to buses and trains.)

Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
those activities.

Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.

And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
_far_ outweigh its tiny risks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,

unread,

May 11, 2016, 9:19:40 PM5/11/16

to

Well, lots of hypothesizing and guessing. Your problem, as I see it, is
Pucher's estimate that American cycling is three times as safe as
American pedestrian travel, in fatalities per km.

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

Granted, Pucher's factor of three in favor of cycling is unusually high.
But the U.S. is unusual in many ways, I suppose.

--
- Frank Krygowski

James

unread,

May 12, 2016, 1:43:49 AM5/12/16

to

On 12/05/16 10:05, John B. wrote:
>
> But, if you fall over while stationary the chances of being injured is
> very small while if you fall while going 30 KPM you are far more
> likely to be hurt.

That very much depends.

If you fall from standing position like a plank, as have a few young
folks here when king hit by a drunken fool, there is a very real risk of
a fatal head wound.

OTOH, I've slid off the bike in a race on a wet road going through a
corner, and suffered no more than a very light graze on my ankle and hip.

I have crashed at higher speed in races, and suffered no more than a
jarred wrist.

What greatly increases risk of serious injury is particularly how you
fall, and what solid objects you collide with before you stop.

--
JS

Graham

unread,

May 12, 2016, 6:17:26 AM5/12/16

to

"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nh0lgl$tnd$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>> rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>

[snip]

> Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
> many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
> recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
> than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
> here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
> is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tsgb01-modal-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages are:

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

I cycle for both leisure and competition (7-8000 miles a year). I also walk and I do not find either in the least bit intimidating i.e. they are both acceptably safe activities. I do wear a helmet through personal choice when riding (but not walking!) and have on numerous occasions benefited from the protection it offers my head. No "definitely saved my life" claims but a few unpleasant injuries avoided. Similarly I have benefited from wearing padded gloves and wearing sun or clear safety glasses. The tarmac, bugs on fast decents or stuff thrown up from a mate's back wheel are, I believe worth protecting my hands and eyes from even if rare occurences. Am I guilty of thereby of conveying a Danger, Danger! message. You decide. I am also testament to the health benefits of cycling and would recommend it to anyone. I find the arguments of zealots on all sides of the cycling safety debate act more to discourage than encourage people to take up cycling.

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 12, 2016, 4:17:54 PM5/12/16

to

The data you linked actually confirms what I've been saying, except that
the anomaly occurred for two years, not just one as I thought. In eight
of the ten years listed, cycling had fewer deaths per km than pedestrian
travel. After two years (2012 and 2013) of being slightly worse,
cycling returned to beating walking in 2014. In the ten year average,
cycling beats walking.

And again, Britain is unique, AFAIK, in ever having walking safer than
cycling in deaths per km traveled. Most countries seem to routinely
find cycling safer by that measure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

James

unread,

May 12, 2016, 5:02:35 PM5/12/16

to

Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?

--
JS

Andre Jute

unread,

May 12, 2016, 6:55:38 PM5/12/16

to

Thanks, Graham. I'm afraid I've just given up. Life is too short to educate those who've already made up their minds.

I too am an example of Health Through Cycling, as my physicians keep telling me that I owe being alive to the bike.

Andre Jute

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 12, 2016, 8:12:05 PM5/12/16

to

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,

May 12, 2016, 8:38:16 PM5/12/16

to

It depends. Many of my friends have broken collar bones. My closest friend had internal fixation. Some end up with AC joint (acromio-clavicular joint -- the bump on the top of the shoulder) disruption and surgery because of that. Others get a sling only.

One of my son's good friends (with whom I rode when in SLC) just did a face plant with no helmet. He was knocked out and broke his face and jaw. He has his jaw wired shut and seems like a different person. He is having a very bad short-term recovery from his concussion. Shoe drops: he was riding drunk.

-- Jay Beattie.

James

unread,

May 12, 2016, 8:45:18 PM5/12/16

to

So my (sarcastic) question "Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?"
was answered.

Most people see broken bones as "serious", I imagine. Even a broken rib
(another common cycling injury) can cause a punctured lung and serious
complications.

A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder will never
be the same.

--
JS

John B.

unread,

May 12, 2016, 9:08:44 PM5/12/16

to

On Thu, 12 May 2016 15:43:42 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That wasn't the point at all. I said (above) that the chances of being
hurt increased with an increases in speed. Not that one would
automatically be severally damaged at any speed over XYZ.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 12, 2016, 9:46:11 PM5/12/16

to

But essentially simple numbers of deaths is meaningless. Although
these sort of calculation are frequently used to justify something.

Re
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/walking-and-cycling-statistics

About 3% of the population in the U.K. cycle 5 or more times a week
and approximately 47% walk at least 5 times a week.

As the population of the U.K. is in the neighborhood of 63,182,000
(2011 census) then the cycling population is about 1,895,460 and the
walking population is 29,695,540.

Using the figures for a ten year average then the cycling figures come
to 26/1895460 = .00137%. Walking deaths for the ten years average is
28/29695540 = .0000943%.

It might be noted that deaths due to old age in the U.K. amounted to
about 313,942 deaths on average per year in people aged 75 and over. A
death rate of 313,942/63,182,000, or 0.49%.

Which makes the death rate of cyclists or pedestrians,, whether in raw
numbers or percentages, look rather insignificant :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 12, 2016, 10:17:21 PM5/12/16

to

On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:08:42 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 11 May 2016 18:46:16

>Physics 101 - your vertical velocity on hitting the ground is the
>same, no matter how fast you are moving along parallel to it. - the
>only thing that makes a difference is the height you fall from.
>Your speed only makes a difference to the level of gravel rash you
>will suffer, or if you actually collide with something.
>And very few utility cyclists travel at 30kph. On average the speed
>of a utility cyclist is 3 to 4x that of a pedestrian, depending on
>terrain.

That is an over simplification. I seem to remember (although memory
can be a sometime thing) that the force of a falling body that is also
traveling horizontally is a vector of the two forces, i.e. vertical
velocity and horizontal velocity.

But even of you ignore the above the force imposed on a body that is
de-accelerated results in various other forces being imposed. There
has, for example, been some discussion here of the "fact" that the
addend mass of a helmet may result in greater twisting forces applied
to the spine.

As for 30 kph I agree that it may not be an average speed but it is
certainly a speed that is attainable for significant periods of time.
According to Cycling Magazine the average speed of "You" over a 14 Kim
time trial course is 19 - 20 MPH, or 30 - 32 kph.

So certainly it is a reasonable figure.

>Not anywhere I know of any more.
>"Collision", "Incident" and suchlike terms are now preferred, because
>smart lawyers worked out that if someone like the police use the word
>"accident" it means it's nobodies fault really, so they should not be
>punished for something beyond their control. So the word is avoided
>to prevent prejudice.

You discount common conversation? I've never heard anyone say, "Oh! I
had a car incident". The term normally heard is "Oh! I had an
accident".

Official people often use a different language in order to be
specific. To the extent that the usual contract usually starts with a
"definition of terms". something that the normal conversation (or post
here in) doesn't do :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Bertrand

unread,

May 12, 2016, 11:36:31 PM5/12/16

to

> Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
> think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
> country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?
>
> A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
> is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
> would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
> potentially life changing.

For what it's worth, here's the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
definition for aviation incidents and accidents:

Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more
than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was
received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of
fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or
tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or
third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body
surface.

So a broken collarbone would count.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 12, 2016, 11:55:32 PM5/12/16

to

That's the worst case scenario game again. I have a friend who fell and
broke a rib while walking on a forest path. Yes, it hurt, but not
nearly as badly as the shingles pain two different friends of mine
endured. And the treatment was the same: tough it out, perhaps with mild
analgesics. Is shingles considered a "serious injury?" Then why should a
simple broken rib, with no complications?

To put it another way: Yes, a punctured lung is serious. A broken rib
is not. And only a tiny percentage of broken ribs puncture lungs.

> A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder will never
> be the same.

But they are generally not treated at all, beyond slings and mild pain
relievers. The only people who get surgery for that are athletes. For
others, its of no practical importance.

I suppose we could examine a list of specific injuries that are, and are
not, included in the "serious injury" part of KSI.

But as usual, this thread has morphed. The original point, by James, was

that "cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of a head injury

than pedestrians or any other road user group." I can cite at least
four or five studies that show that cycling's medical benefits far
outweigh its risks.

Given these facts, it seems silly to spend time fantasizing about
hypothetical punctured lungs, or sports careers ruined by AC tears.

Cycling is simply not very dangerous on average, and unfortunately,
"average" includes people like Jay's drunk rider, lots of of
no-light-at-night folks, plenty of salmon riders, etc. If you ride
competently and with reasonable care, cycling is far safer yet.

--
- Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 13, 2016, 5:57:19 AM5/13/16

to

On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:16:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel <Rolf....@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 13.05.2016 um 10:55 schrieb John B.:
>
>> I read an Australian study that showed that a significant number of
>> Australian bicycle accidents are associated with high blood-alcohol
>> levels.
>
>Even more significant than the number of accidents, the average severity
>of incidents is significantly increased with high blood-alcohol level
>(and with old age above 75 years).
>

The politically correct term is "upper middle age" :-)

>Whereas sober (pedestrians and )cyclists on a simple fall typically have
>some rashes and bruises, drunk people who fall often hit their head on
>the ground because the reflexes protecting the head are severely reduced.

--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 13, 2016, 7:03:26 AM5/13/16

to

How do they collect and document the mileage? Does every cyclist
report after each ride?

>What is more important is that ~25 in 1 billion is exceedingly low. Given that in most developed countires I expect the numbers are of a similar order of magnitude I guess virtually everyone contributing to this group never even thinks about the possibilty of getting killed when they jump on their bikes. Similarly even if we move to the all casualty categories where the cycling numbers are three times those of walking how many of us think we might be injured however slightly when we either walk out of the door or jump on our bikes. It is the zealots obsessing about these statistics and the small risks involved that scare people. It is they who are guilty of Danger Danger! not those who choose to wear any sort of protective gear when they ride be that helmet, gloves or glasses.
>
>Those of us who do chose to wear such gear tend to know from personal experience that statistics used for transport planning and the like do not necessarily apply to us particularly if we ride competitively or in challenging environments where unfortunatly, as the say, "shit happens!" If you push the envelope you will from time to time come off and then be glad of the gear. Clearly none of this applies to the average utility cyclist and I support fully their right to be able to ride in normal clothes without the need for any special gear. It should be up to them whether or not they want to follow my example given the much lower level of "self imposed" risk they face. To me their main source of risk comes from the traffic they tend to ride in where my gear would not help them much anyway. I do no utility cycling and prefer the open roads to urban roads. To me cycling is a sport not a form of transport. Anywhere up to two miles I prefer to walk beyond that or if I have a serious load
>to carry I am afraid its the car. I have two daughters who cycle purely as a form of transport and have no interest in it at all as a sport. We all share a love of cycling and do not rubbish each others choices.
>
>As to definitions the those behind the UK statistics are:
>
>Serious injury: Injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussions, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.
>
>Slight injury: Sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruising or cuts which are not judged to be severe. Also slight shock requiring roadside assistance.
>
>Graham.
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
cheers,

John B.

John B.

unread,

May 13, 2016, 7:05:30 AM5/13/16

to

On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:16:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel <Rolf....@web.de>
wrote:

I've read all kinds of stories about Drunks. Some even allege that a
Drunk, being nearly unconscious is less likely to be injured because
he is limp :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

AMuzi

unread,

May 13, 2016, 8:26:01 AM5/13/16

to

That's a trend. Alcohol doesn't go well with fixed gear, no
brake:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FACEPLNT.JPG

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi

unread,

May 13, 2016, 8:26:46 AM5/13/16

to

+1
both of mine

Graham

unread,

May 13, 2016, 8:30:12 AM5/13/16

to

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message news:qhcbjblr7eh611p2l...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:56:25 +0100, "Graham"
> <h2gt2g42-mi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nh2o6q$p47$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nh0lgl$tnd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> [snip]

>>In most years the differences in deaths per billion kms could easily be accounted for by data collection (kms covered) and rounding errors as they are quoted as integers. Surely rather than arguing over trivial differences we should be able to agree for all intents and purposes that the numbers are the same instead of making the pedantic point above.
>>
> How do they collect and document the mileage? Does every cyclist
> report after each ride?

More or less ;) To quote:

"NTS (National Travel Survey) data collection consists of a face-to-face interview and a 7 day self-completed written travel diary, allowing travel patterns to be linked with individual characteristics. The NTS covers travel by people in all age groups, including children"

Apparently some still want to cite the difference between numbers like 22 deaths per billion kms and 21 deaths per billion kms to make their point!!!!

jbeattie

unread,

May 13, 2016, 11:45:53 AM5/13/16

to

At least this kid had a brake and a SS. He hit some pot hole or other road discontinuity and . . . whap. That happened to me without the booze (pot hole under water on flooded road), and I had a concussion, small facial laceration and an AC separation. I got a sling, but I wasn't that diligent wearing it. I think my helmet helped mitigate the injuries based on distribution, e.g. no forehead or scalp injury.

-- Jay Beattie.

cycl...@gmail.com

unread,

May 13, 2016, 12:23:56 PM5/13/16

to

On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 8:58:38 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
> interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
> injury than cyclists in the EU.
>
> I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
> may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
> a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
> words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
> discrimination.
>
> http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/stories/ge/Publications/Papers-Conferences/geyannis-pc235.pdf
>

> --
> JS

James - Almost ALL you will get here is opinions based on other people's opinions.

Since I studied helmets since they first came out (as safety director of the American Federation of Motorcycles) and as an engineer I can quite accurately tell you that helmets offer extremely small protection. And they WILL NOT decrease Traumatic Brain Injury though they certainly can reduce things like road rash on your head and VERY minor head injuries such as a bump and the like.

Helmets have one overwhelming limitation - the size with which a person can put up with. And the weight with which the human neck and spine can support. (no that's not two points it is one).

Because of this EXTREMELY limited size the Snell Foundation set their limits on attempting to prevent skull fractures NOT from collisions but simply from falling over.

While all of this sounds good it turns out that the overwhelming majority of Traumatic Brain Injuries is NOT from skull fractures but concussion which often causes permanent disabilities.

And the SAME standards which make the helmet strong enough to keep you from skull fracture make the helmet worthless at preventing concussion - the impact resistance is too high. If you make the material softer to prevent concussions the helmet is FAR too small to pass the testing standards and at the size they are they are too thin to effectively prevent concussions.

So no matter HOW many doctors and nurses will swear that helmets saved a life they most certainly did not. The head simply did not strike hard enough for Traumatic Brain Injury. And that is the general case. You normally protect yourself in a fall so that your head does not strike but that most of the energy is absorbed gouging large sections of skin off of your hands, arms and legs.

Welcome to the real world.

cycl...@gmail.com

unread,

May 13, 2016, 12:57:10 PM5/13/16

to

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/10/2016 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

> > On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >
> >> On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
> >>> What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
> >>> interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
> >>> injury than cyclists in the EU.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
> >>> may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
> >>> a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
> >>> words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
> >>> discrimination.
> >>>
> >>> http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/stories/ge/Publications/Papers-Conferences/geyannis-pc235.pdf
> >>

> Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
> comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
> gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
> bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
> people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
> those activities.
>
> Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
> society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
> big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
> caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
> by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.
>
> And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
> ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
> U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
> because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
> similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
> the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
> _far_ outweigh its tiny risks.
>

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, you are trying to use statistics to show that helmets don't work. That's a dead end because most people haven't the capacity to understand statistics.

Though it would seem easy enough to understand that you compare the numbers of one sort of ACCIDENT to the numbers of TBI's it turns out that is rather difficult to do.

It is comparing apples and oranges. MOST bicycle injuries are single vehicle accidents that do not involve automobiles while EVERY pedestrian accident involves a car. So the levels of energy are at the very least an order of magnitude different.

And cyclists in a fall protect themselves whereas a pedestrian being struck doesn't have any way to protect himself.

Therefore we are reduced to the plain engineering of bicycle or motorcycle helmets.

Having been a nearly fatal victim of TBI falling on my head from ONLY THREE FEET I can attest that the engineering standards of a helmet are not and cannot be sufficient.

There are improvements which can and are being made - the aero designs of helmets are disappearing since the rear section of such a helmet can cause your head to twist in a minor fall and break your neck. Stylish round helmets are appearing FINALLY.

Giro is designing a helmet in which the liner is disconnected from the absorbent material. This therefore allows the helmet to sharply twist if you fall and do not strike your head directly. On the surface, this seems like it might help prevent some concussions from minor falls but that remains to be seen and I have serious doubts.

So "what is a concussion"? The brain is held in place inside of the skull by a web of tissue (the Dura). If you strike your head the deceleration of your skull can exceed the ability of that tissue to retain your brain in place and not only can it then slam into the other side of your skull causing damage to the (generally) cerebellum, but it can also then bounce back and forth tearing the VERY important tissue that holds the two halves of the brain together.

The cerebellum contains memory, personality and behavior, reasoning, movement and intelligence. In my case the memory is sorely effected.

Serious injuries are not a pretty thing. I will be taking medication for the rest of my life that has some rather nasty side effects. At the moment my blood levels are peaking and I am having trouble focusing.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 13, 2016, 12:57:19 PM5/13/16

to

Keep in mind what the point really is, and what it's in response to.

One major American newspaper just did yet another story about the fact
that bike commuting may be less safe than you think, and claiming that
bikes are "the most dangerous way to get around, with the exception of
motorcycles." However, the article never mentions walking at all. If
the incompetent, fear mongering author had bothered to check that
comparison, she might have thought twice about her message.

And when people say that cycling is more dangerous than walking, data
claiming the opposite should not be inadmissible. 22 vs. 21 may be a
small difference; but if such small differences are found year after in
favor of cycling, it seems unlikely they're due to rounding errors.

And again: Britain's fatality-per-km figures, while favoring cycling
over walking, seem unusually close. Pucher found more than a 3 to 1
margin in favor of cycling. I have some old Australian data (1986) with
a 3.8 to 1 margin favoring cycling. Also 1999 data from the U.K. giving
a 1.4 to one margin in favor of cycling.

Cycling has been subject to "Danger! Danger!" propaganda for decades
now. I'm baffled that dedicated cyclists accept that propaganda without
question; and I'm more baffled when they argue to exclude data that
shows the fear mongering to be false.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 13, 2016, 1:05:22 PM5/13/16

to

Correct. Back in 2009, Dr. Patrick Crocker of Austin Texas was lobbying
hard for an all-ages mandatory helmet law in that city. He announced a
research project, in which hospital staff would gather data on all
cyclists presented to the ER for (IIRC) two years.

Once the data was in, he was forced to admit that correlation between
helmet use and brain injury did not reach statistical significance. But
there was strong correlation between alcohol use and TBI.

One interesting corollary is that very few helmet studies have kept data
on alcohol use. It's a widely ignored confounding factor. And since
drunks rarely wear helmets, it may invalidate a lot of pro-helmet studies.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,

May 13, 2016, 1:06:06 PM5/13/16

to

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 10:02:35 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
> On 13/05/16 06:17, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> > On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:
> >>
> >> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:nh0lgl$tnd$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >> [snip]
> >>

> Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?
>

> --
> JS

I would take this result as a nudge that we need to examine another metric to get at the most relevant truth. The obvious one, arising from the consideration that pedestrians and bicycles don't travel at the same speed, is by the time spent on the bike/on the pedestrian's feet. Bikes, cars and feet are usually used for different lengths of journeys, too. And so on; it merely requires putting one's mind in gear. After examining the other metrics, we may of course decide that the most relevant truth is contained in the number we started with. I once demonstrated on the American national transport numbers that, generally speaking (meaning except for fanatics like Franki-boy trying to find a number that buzzes like the bee in his bonnet), all the numbers tend the same way: cycling is safe enough, comparatively speaking, a point I take up in the penultimate par of this letter. But you can't arrive at a proper conclusion without considering all the relevant metrics -- and, importantly, going through the reasoning behind those metrics, which is also the statistician's demonstrating that he understands what he's trying to measure.

The point I'm making is that the view you take depends on the metric you choose. I don't know whether Frank Krygowski is too stupid to grasp that statistics aren't just mechanical mathematics but an elevated interdisciplinary art form, or in the grip of a political passion that blinds him to the fact that we all know he uses statistics to tell lies that suit him, but he is the prime, glaring example on RBT of how statistics can be made to lie and lie and lie.

There is another problem. The results are per billion miles per year (an important part of the metric description usually left off to save space on top of columns but understood by professionals), an aggregate of all cyclists at a moment in time spanning one year. But one cyclist, you, me, will never ride a billion miles per year or in any period of time. Experienced researchers who practice on large demographics know that huge aggregate universes with tiny fractions as results hide plenty of what a statistician called Clive once poetically called "ripples in the sand, under the foam of the waves".

Let me give you a couple of examples. Speed matters in accidents, right? Common sense tells us that it does. Well, the most potentially damaging bicycle accident I was ever in was a single bike incident, not another vehicle on the road, and I was riding at maybe 6mph on a narrow lane approaching an intersection with another narrow lane at the top of a hill in the countryside. I was blown off my bike by a sudden wind that sprang up between the hedges, that the truckie who picked me up said all the flatsiders know about, and bruised all up my side; my doctor said the extent of the bruising and scraping was such that I was lucky not to have broken a hip and maimed myself for life. Late last year, a quarter century older, at somewhere between 35 and 50kph on a downhill section I took a faceplant when my front tube blew out, so apparently hard that all three the drivers behind me stopped, phones out to call the ambulance. There wasn't a mark on me except a lightly grazed shin from extracting myself from the bike, which fell on top of me. Even my helmet, which protected my face, was only lightly scratched, and the vizor wasn't even cracked. I was shook up but told the people who stopped (two of whom offered to run me home -- I live in a small, friendly town) that they could go, I would call a taxi to take my bike home across the valley. The point? These aggregates don't describe individual accidents, nor do they predict what will happen to you. Note that I make no universal conclusions from these events; they're outliers, under the radar. Note something else: since I have a personal physician and therefore do not appear at A&E unless I arrive by public ambulance, unconscious, even the serious accident won't appear in any statistic, and wouldn't have even if I had broken a hip, because the truckie would still have delivered me to my doctor's surgery only three miles away and 22m nearer than the nearest A&E. Two broken little fingers, from other incidents, which would apparently count in these statistics, were never even shown to my physician, never mind taken to A&E, because, as a writer who uses all his fingers all the time, I didn't want them splinted.

By the way, the nearest I ever came to death on my bike wasn't even an accident, and no other vehicle was involved: I was stung by a wasp and swelled up so alarmingly, and was losing control so fast, that my pedalpals rushed me to my doctor's surgery where I was given an antihistamine injection and a lecture during which I discovered that in another hour at most I would have been dead. Now that deserves a statistic of its own!

"Cycling is safe enough, comparatively speaking" -- unlike some, I don't have the hubris to speak for anyone but myself. In fact, a point Graham has also made, cycling on most available numbers, after you make allowance for the difficulties and uncertainties inherent in the numbers, is no more dangerous nor any more safe than most common forms of personal transport. This is why cycling advocates try to fudge the point by arguing that there are "societal benefits" from increased health of cyclists, which may or may not be true but is, statistically, special pleading, which is merely a semi-polite way of saying that it is a crap argument.

The point, once we can measure that closely, is not to discuss endlessly whether cycling is "safer" than say zero-parachute skydiving, but to note that more can and should be done to save cyclists' lives. I have already demonstrated that in the United States, a mandatory helmet law will save several hundred lives every year. I don't know whether the same is true elsewhere because we don't have relevant numbers (the Stateside conclusion depends on the multiyear headcount, not sampling, of injured cyclists in New York, a uniquely competent and comprehensive set of numbers) but I suspect it isn't true in The Netherlands because the cycling/motoring cultural balance is different.

Andre Jute
Whose statistics?

Andre Jute

unread,

May 13, 2016, 1:08:47 PM5/13/16

to

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 4:45:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>...hit some pot hole or other road discontinuity and . . . whap. That happened to me without the booze (pot hole under water on flooded road), and I had a concussion, small facial laceration and an AC separation. I got a sling, but I wasn't that diligent wearing it. I think my helmet helped mitigate the injuries based on distribution, e.g. no forehead or scalp injury.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

That's when a helmet earns its keep, keeping you pretty despite stupidity or bad luck.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute

unread,

May 13, 2016, 1:14:47 PM5/13/16

to

Ouch. -- AJ

> In the UK, any broken bone, dislocated joint or hospital admission is
> automatically classed as serious. There are a few other things as
> well.
> However, the figures are grossly distorted because to qualify as a
> reportable transport incident, a vehicle must be involved. That means
> ALL cycling incidents get listed, but NONE of thee trips, slips and
> falls which outnumber vulnerable road user incidents by an order of
> magnitude.
> That is probably why the UK looks so bad in the cyclist/pedestrian
> comparison.

Ah, I'd read of that before but forgotten it. So if a cyclist slips on
ice and falls, the resulting injury counts against cycling. If a
pedestrian slips on ice and falls, it doesn't count. Is that correct?

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B.

unread,

May 13, 2016, 8:41:25 PM5/13/16

to

On Fri, 13 May 2016 23:26:50 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Fri, 13 May 2016 09:17:16
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Thu, 12 May 2016 19:08:42 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Wed, 11 May 2016 18:46:16
>>>+0700 the perfect time to write:

>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:21:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/10/2016 9:13 PM, John B. wrote:

>>>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:43:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2016 11:58 PM, James wrote:
>>>>>>>> What I find most refreshing is the absence of helmet agenda, and
>>>>>>>> interesting that pedestrians appear to have a *higher* incidence of head
>>>>>>>> injury than cyclists in the EU.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know what the helmet wearing rate is like across the EU, but it
>>>>>>>> may be safe to say that cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of
>>>>>>>> a head injury than pedestrians or any other road user group. In other
>>>>>>>> words, to target cyclists for mandatory helmet laws seems like class
>>>>>>>> discrimination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://nrso.ntua.gr/geyannis/images/stories/ge/Publications/Papers-Conferences/geyannis-pc235.pdf
>>>>>>>

>>>>>made to switch to buses and trains.)
>>>>
>>>>I'm still not sure that comparing an activity that takes place at
>>>>approximately 30 KPH with one that takes place at, say 5 KPH is valid.
>>>>If you come off the bike at 30 KPHG you hit the ground at a velocity
>>>>sufficient to break bones while falling while walking is more akin to
>>>>dropping a watermelon.
>>>
>>>Physics 101 - your vertical velocity on hitting the ground is the
>>>same, no matter how fast you are moving along parallel to it. - the
>>>only thing that makes a difference is the height you fall from.
>>>Your speed only makes a difference to the level of gravel rash you
>>>will suffer, or if you actually collide with something.
>>>And very few utility cyclists travel at 30kph. On average the speed
>>>of a utility cyclist is 3 to 4x that of a pedestrian, depending on
>>>terrain.
>>
>>That is an over simplification. I seem to remember (although memory
>>can be a sometime thing) that the force of a falling body that is also
>>traveling horizontally is a vector of the two forces, i.e. vertical
>>velocity and horizontal velocity.
>>
>>But even of you ignore the above the force imposed on a body that is
>>de-accelerated results in various other forces being imposed. There
>>has, for example, been some discussion here of the "fact" that the
>>addend mass of a helmet may result in greater twisting forces applied
>>to the spine.
>>
>>As for 30 kph I agree that it may not be an average speed but it is
>>certainly a speed that is attainable for significant periods of time.
>>According to Cycling Magazine the average speed of "You" over a 14 Kim
>>time trial course is 19 - 20 MPH, or 30 - 32 kph.
>>
>>So certainly it is a reasonable figure.
>>
>Not even remotely so for a utility cyclist.
>Most of them would only ever see that speed on a long hill, and would
>find it scary/exciting depending on personality.

You are, I suspect, speaking of the cyclist that leaps astride their
cycle and pedals sedately off to the corner store for a quart of milk,
and in that rather narrow definition you are undoubtedly correct, but
that same cyclist, on a nice Sunday, may well be out on the highways
and byways rolling along at 30 KPH.

As Frank has noted, buying a bicycle for a nice old lady to ride
sedately along the road is posing a bit of a problem.... they don't
seem to be so common these days.

>What you are doing is taking a sporting figure and applying it to
>utility use. On that basis, it's reasonable to claim that the average
>speed of motorcyclists is around 200km/h - after all, that's what they
>manage to average in the Isle of Man TT, on real roads.
>And of course, cars in city centres average over 130km/h, because the
>F1 Grand Prix in Monaco averages that, again on real city centre
>roads.

Ridiculous. I can't quantify it as I don't carry a pencil and paper to
make a note every time I see speedy cyclists but I certainly have the
very distinct impression that the bulk of the cyclists I see on my
Sunday Ride are capable of 30 kph and are riding at that speed every
chance they have. You assertion that 30 kph is a racing speed is
ludicrous. If you are speaking of professional racing speeds then you
should be discussing speeds of nearly twice that speed.

Rik Verbrugghe, 58.874 km/h, 7.6 km prologue time trial 2001 Giro
d'Italia, and Greg LeMond 54.545 km/h Versailles - Paris (24.5 km)
1989, so it has been going on for a number of years.

>>>>
>>>>But regarding danger, danger, I grew up in New England and the house
>>>>I lived in was painted with white lead paint as well as the house my
>>>>grand parents lived in, and the Methodist Church, and most of the
>>>>other wooden buildings in town and lead paint was commonly used as I
>>>>know back to the 1700's if not earlier.
>>>>
>>>>Now I'm assured by (primarily) Usians that lead paint is absolute
>>>>poison and you shouldn't get near it,
>>>>
>>>>I'm also told that mercury is a poison and if you drop a thermometer
>>>>you better run. Yet a Doctor advised me that liquid mercury is not
>>>>dangerous to the human body.
>>>>
>>>>And on and on and on. What ever happened to the brave, stalwart
>>>>pioneer, braving wild animals and wilder people to settle the country?
>>>>
>>>>Regarding lead :-) While in High School I worked a summer for the
>>>>Vermont Forest Service and one of the jobs we did was re-roofing the
>>>>barn at the Calvin Coolidge homestead. The old house was in pretty bad
>>>>shape but we camped out there and I discovered that the water system
>>>>was a pipeline from a spring up the hill a ways and at least in the
>>>>summer the Coolidge family had running water. Through a lead pipe.
>>>>
>>>>Can you imagine, Calvin Coolidge grew up drinking water from a lead
>>>>pipe and look how he turned out :-)

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fatalities per hour is an alternative. That's more useful for general
>>>>>comparison of widely different activities, like swimming vs. cleaning
>>>>>gutters vs. gardening vs. riding motorcycles vs. rock climbing vs.
>>>>>bicycling. It works well for comparing many leisure activities, since
>>>>>people probably tend to budget a relatively constant amount of time to
>>>>>those activities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Total fatality or injury counts are perhaps best for evaluating "cost to
>>>>>society" or something similar. And proponents of bike helmets are very
>>>>>big on claiming that huge portions of our county's budget get sunk into
>>>>>caring for brain damaged cyclists. That's nonsense, of course, as shown
>>>>>by any dispassionate examination of actual causes of serious TBI.
>>>>>
>>>>>And BTW, examining only negative consequences (fatalities, TBI counts,
>>>>>ER visits, etc.) still gives an incomplete picture. Obviously, in the
>>>>>U.S. we permit motoring despite over 30,000 motorist deaths per year
>>>>>because we judge the benefits of motoring are even greater. In a
>>>>>similar way, the hand-wringers should acknowledge that every study on
>>>>>the issue has judged that the medical and societal benefits of cycing
>>>>>_far_ outweigh its tiny risks.
>>>>

>>>>Ah, but when an automobile hits something it is described as "an
>>>>accident".
>>>
>>>Not anywhere I know of any more.
>>>"Collision", "Incident" and suchlike terms are now preferred, because
>>>smart lawyers worked out that if someone like the police use the word
>>>"accident" it means it's nobodies fault really, so they should not be
>>>punished for something beyond their control. So the word is avoided
>>>to prevent prejudice.
>>
>>You discount common conversation? I've never heard anyone say, "Oh! I
>>had a car incident". The term normally heard is "Oh! I had an
>>accident".
>>
>>Official people often use a different language in order to be
>>specific. To the extent that the usual contract usually starts with a
>>"definition of terms". something that the normal conversation (or post
>>here in) doesn't do :-)
>
>So much for technical, eh?
>
>The typical road "accident" is no more accidental than when a child
>kicks a football through a window. It is an entirely foreseeable
>outcome of risky behaviour, which certainly doesn't fit within the
>dictionary definition of "accident".

You are correct. Road accidents are the result of someone going out
and doing something. Had they stayed home, watching TV, the accident
would not have happened. Thus "road accidents" are not chance events
but are the result of a deliberate ands risky action.

But one wonders, do you frequently hear people use terms like, "Ho! I
had a car incident"? Or in the terms of a contract, "herein" or "party
of the first part".
--
cheers,

John B.

unread,

May 14, 2016, 2:01:07 AM5/14/16

to

Frank, you say, that, essentially, you can't find what you/her want, I
said that they (meaning the kind of bike you are looking for) don't
seem to be so common these days. Aren't we saying the same thing?

>Short version: Nope, most cyclists don't crank along at 30 kph. 15 kph
>is more like it.

Well, I suppose that I cannot say categorically that everyone is
cranking along at 30 kph but I can say categorically that I am
cranking along at 25 - 28 kph and most of the bicycles I see are going
faster then I am.

So maybe it is 29 kph?
--
cheers,

John B.

Duane

unread,

May 14, 2016, 7:28:19 AM5/14/16

to

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No time to stick out your hands to protect your head.
>
> The doctor who wired my clavicle together told me that putting out
> your hand to protect your head is hard-wired -- there is no way you
> can *not* do it.
>

As a kid playing football we learned to fall by tucking and rolling. It
sort of overrode the natural impulse to put out your hand and breaking your
wrist. Whether a separated shoulder is better than a broken wrist is
probably a matter of opinion.

--
duane

AMuzi

unread,

May 14, 2016, 8:41:05 AM5/14/16

to

With both shoulders popped and a stainless steel enhanced
wrist, shoulders are IMHO worse. They're never the same,
forever. The wrist was more painful and hugely expensive but
works as well as new now. Other pins, plates, fractures were
significantly less trouble and also healed unremarkably.

Then again I've never broken a femur like Jay and hope to
never form an opinion on that subject.

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 14, 2016, 11:46:35 AM5/14/16

to

Not quite. You said buying a bike for an old lady to ride sedately on
the road is a problem. If my friend wanted a bike designed just for
that, it would be no problem at all; she'd have her choice of dozens of
"comfort bikes." Those bikes are dominating bike shop stock around here.

>> Short version: Nope, most cyclists don't crank along at 30 kph. 15 kph
>> is more like it.
>
> Well, I suppose that I cannot say categorically that everyone is
> cranking along at 30 kph but I can say categorically that I am
> cranking along at 25 - 28 kph and most of the bicycles I see are going
> faster then I am.
>
> So maybe it is 29 kph?

A few years ago when the topic came up, I noted that my flat ground
cruising speed (e.g. when biking to work) was about 19 mph, or 30 kph.
But that was significantly faster than what other people mentioned, and
certainly faster than most of my fellow club members.

I've since slowed significantly. But if I encounter a same-direction
cyclist on a road ride, it's almost always because I'm passing them, not
vice-versa. And on bike trails, where most people haul their car then
ride out and back, it's not even close. I'd guess that 12 mph on flat
ground is typical for those riders.

My guess for overall, average adult cycling speed in America would be no
higher than 10 mph. That's 16 kph. (I actually suspect its less.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 14, 2016, 11:55:35 AM5/14/16

to

In the days when curriculum was still being developed for LAB's
bicycling education courses, there was a proposal to include exercises
in how to fall. They were proposed for course #2, and the students
would have ridden their bike on grass and practiced purposely diving off.

I thought the idea was nuts, and was glad it never passed. I do think a
person can learn to fall and tumble in a way to reduce injury potential,
but I think it needs to happen when a person's a teenager or younger.

On a bike, I think it's far more valuable to spend the time learning to
anticipate problems and ride in a way to reduce the potential for falling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Sir Ridesalot

unread,

May 14, 2016, 12:02:26 PM5/14/16

to

Learning to fall? It's NEVER too late to learn how to fall. The bicycle racing team I was on taught how to fall so that chances of being hurt were much lower. Also, most martial arts teach how to fall very early in their courses. Otherwise the new student would get hurt when throws were being taught.

Cheers

Duane

unread,

May 14, 2016, 2:20:38 PM5/14/16

to

Yeah, like I said I learned it as a kid playing football. Didn't mean to
trigger the Danger! Danger! auto response thing.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 14, 2016, 3:13:56 PM5/14/16

to

I can see learning to fall for an activity that will involve lots of
falls, like martial arts. It was a big part of judo class when I was
younger. I suppose it might be worth it for crit racers.

But ordinary riding? On-road, I've had two moving falls since 1972. I
concentrated instead on learning to avoid situations where I might fall.

Heck, even mountain biking (back when I did a lot of that) none of my
many falls were serious.

Maybe I should ask: Does anyone here fall on-road even once a year? If
so, what in heck are you doing out there?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,

May 14, 2016, 4:38:58 PM5/14/16

unread,

May 15, 2016, 9:04:16 PM5/15/16

to

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 15 May 2016 11:57:21

> It seems that not many LBSs stock touring or audax bikes, which seems
> to be the kind of bike that would suit the requirements.

Andrew recommended a Bianchi Volpe that sounded like it would serve well.
Mine could take 32s though I preferred 28s. They seem to be readily
available in most places. A Specialized Roubaix would probably fit the bill
but I don't remember how wide a tire they take. I know several people that
use them for touring.

<snip>

--
duane

John B.

unread,

May 15, 2016, 9:16:11 PM5/15/16

to

On Mon, 16 May 2016 01:05:45 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz> considered Sun, 15 May 2016 11:57:21

>It seems that not many LBSs stock touring or audax bikes, which seems
>to be the kind of bike that would suit the requirements.

I suspect that this is because there aren't many "audexers" :-)

The biggest bike dealer in Bangkok usually has one Trek X20 touring
bike and one Trek Tri-athlete bike on display. The rest of the floor
is taken up by a mix of mountain bikes, conventional road bikes and an
increasing number of folders and the road bike's with straight handle
bars (whatever you call them).

I suspect that this demonstrates when customer's are asking for.

>So it depends on how common utility bike use is compared to sporting
>bike use.
>When utility use dominates, the average would be much lower, which is
>pretty much what I said, and is certainly the situation in and around
>Cambridge.
>I'd say we probably have 50 utility cyclists for each sporting one,
>based on club memberships (for sporting riders) and number of bikes at
>colleges and seen commuting - both by formal count and my own visual
>observation (for utility users).

Yesterday (Sunday) there was a big bicycle ride in honor of the King's
70th year on the throne. Pictures published by the Bangkok Post (the
nation's largest English language newspaper) showed a predominance of
straight handle bars. My Sunday Ride, in contrast, shows a
predominance of conventional "road bars".
--
cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski

to

On Sun, 15 May 2016 11:13:50 +0700, John B. <slocom...@gmail.xyz>
wrote:

> I caught the front wheel in the crevasse that was about 1-1/2 inches
> wide and probably about the same depth. I consciously remember seeing
> the tire in the crevasse and my next memory is laying the ground.

I described my diversion-type fall as "God mistook me for a mosquito"
-- no interval at all between "oh, no, our wheels are going to touch"
and having just bounced off the pavement.

I've been very sensitive to things that might steer my bike ever
since!

James

unread,

May 16, 2016, 12:03:41 AM5/16/16

to

On 14/05/16 04:29, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 11:23:56 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com

> wrote:
>>
>> So no matter HOW many doctors and nurses will swear that helmets
>> saved a life they most certainly did not. The head simply did not
>> strike hard enough for Traumatic Brain Injury. And that is the
>> general case. You normally protect yourself in a fall so that your
>> head does not strike but that most of the energy is absorbed
>> gouging large sections of skin off of your hands, arms and legs.
>>
>

> It is very apparent you have never ever been in an actual bike
> accident. I will agree the instinct is to stick out your hands and
> arms to protect your head. Given enough time to react. Such as
> failing to get your feet out of the pedals and toppling over on the
> side of the road. You will stick out your hands to brace your fall.
> But in almost all other accidents, there is no time to react
> consciously by sticking out your hands to break your fall. A car
> turns in front of you while riding. You hit the fender, roll onto
> the hood and windshield, fall to the ground. Fraction of a second.
> No time to stick out your hands to protect your head. I'd suggest
> you learn a bit more about how the real world works.
>

One of the reasons roadie cyclists usually wear gloves is because their
hands usually suffer in a crash. Without the gloves, large chunks of
skin get taken off, and this makes life very unpleasant for several
weeks while the skin heals.

I speak from experience, and I still prefer not to wear gloves unless
I'm in a race or it is hot sweaty weather and the gloves improve grip.

The fact that hands are usually damaged would tend to indicate that the
rider - whether consciously or not - put their hands out to break their
fall.

Last car I collided with, the driver failed to give way and I clipped
the back corner while the back wheel was airborne with the front brake
hard on. I went over the bars and tumbled down the road, rolling
several times. Imagine seeing sky, earth, sky, earth, sky, earth.
Though my knee dented the car pretty well, I didn't suffer any serious
injuries. Had the bike not been a little bashed up, I could have ridden
home.

So yes, speaking from experience, having had crashes out riding and
racing, with and without cars involved, many people put their hands out
instinctively, or can be trained to.

--
JS

James

unread,

May 16, 2016, 12:07:41 AM5/16/16

to

Having your hand touch the ground first is often how you control your
descent to initiate a forward roll.

It's when you land hard on your shoulder first that you break it.

--
JS

unread,

May 16, 2016, 6:21:33 AM5/16/16

to

Or separate it.

Like someone up thread said it has a lot to do with whether you see it
coming. I've had another fall where I hit a bump and the wheel went
sideways. Didn't know I fell until I realized I was staring up at the
trees. I'm told I went down sideways and landed on my side. I guess so
since the side of my helmet was cracked through.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 16, 2016, 10:40:34 AM5/16/16

to

Then I do think it's very different from the U.S.

Especially inside cities, it's extremely common to see wrong-way riders,
people riding on sidewalks, etc. Likewise, it's common to see cyclists
violate traffic lights - not necessarily by totally ignoring them, but
frequently by slowing, looking both ways and accelerating through if
they think it's safe enough.

I'm not saying those people-on-bikes are a majority of cyclists, but
they're far from unusual. In the center of our city (not my suburban
village, mind you) if you see a middle-aged low-income person on a bike,
he's almost certain to be riding facing traffic.

Wrong way riding does seem to correlate to a degree with income level;
but many times I've passed adults in well-to-do suburban neighborhoods
riding on the wrong side of the road.

They're usually nicely helmeted, though, so they're "safe." :-/

Oh, and lights at night? Night riding is really rare around here. I
guess people actually believe the stickers that come on the top tubes of
many new bikes, that include the warning "Never Ride at Night!" But if
I do see a night cyclist with a light, it's unusual enough to be a
pleasant surprise.

I wish all the above were not true, but that's what things look like
around here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

James

unread,

May 16, 2016, 6:21:05 PM5/16/16

to

Refs here:
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/finding-fault-when-cyclists-and-motorists-collide-ghwwze

>
> Especially inside cities, it's extremely common to see wrong-way riders,
> people riding on sidewalks, etc. Likewise, it's common to see cyclists
> violate traffic lights - not necessarily by totally ignoring them, but
> frequently by slowing, looking both ways and accelerating through if
> they think it's safe enough.

A study here showed that cyclists were only marginally more inclined
than drivers to run red lights. More here:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3857163.htm

And I recall reading that those who do ride through do not seem to place
themselves at great risk, according to crash statistics.

Riding on a sidewalk (footpath here) is not generally life threatening.
It is allowed in most Australian states and territories, with few side
effects.

>
> I'm not saying those people-on-bikes are a majority of cyclists, but
> they're far from unusual. In the center of our city (not my suburban
> village, mind you) if you see a middle-aged low-income person on a bike,
> he's almost certain to be riding facing traffic.
>
> Wrong way riding does seem to correlate to a degree with income level;
> but many times I've passed adults in well-to-do suburban neighborhoods
> riding on the wrong side of the road.
>
> They're usually nicely helmeted, though, so they're "safe." :-/
>
> Oh, and lights at night? Night riding is really rare around here. I
> guess people actually believe the stickers that come on the top tubes of
> many new bikes, that include the warning "Never Ride at Night!" But if
> I do see a night cyclist with a light, it's unusual enough to be a
> pleasant surprise.
>
> I wish all the above were not true, but that's what things look like
> around here.
>
>

While I used to ride regularly at night in Melbourne, I noticed a lot of
unlit or poorly bicycles. Interestingly this does not seem to be a
significant cause of collisions. Likewise in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

--
JS

Frank Krygowski

unread,

May 16, 2016, 9:41:09 PM5/16/16

to

I suppose this may vary quite a bit from country to country. Cycling
cultures probably vary as much as other cultures. There have been quite
a few similar studies in the U.S. While I haven't read most of them in
detail, the most common finding seems to be that in the U.S., fault is
split quite close to 50-50.

I'm on a local committee that investigates fatal crashes, but I've seen
police reports from non-fatal, even minor injury crashes. One problem
that's cropped up is the crash report form used by the police. While
there is room for sketches of the situation, narration, etc., most of
the form is taken up by check boxes and boxes in which the officer is
required indicate one choice from a small table. For example, "Road
condition" is a choice from dry, wet, snow, ice, sand, water, slush, etc.

The problem regarding bike lights is that for a bicyclist, there's _one_
place for the cop to choose "Safety equipment," from the following list:
09= none used; 10=helmet used; 11=protective pads (elbows, knees,
etc.) 12=reflective clothing 13=lighting. So, if the cop sees a
helmet (or even elbow pads!) he's likely to use the space for that
choice. In any computer-based analysis of the reports, we don't get to
know if the cyclist had lights at night, despite those being legally
required at night. It's just weird.

FWIW, I'm a (minor) member of a team that's lobbying to produce a better
form. But bureaucracy moves slowly indeed.

ISTR a claim by Florida bike and ped planner Mighk Wilson (whom I've
met) that in Florida at least, unlit night cyclists are heavily
over-represented in serious car-bike crashes. Can't find that claim
now, but this article is interesting:

http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html

- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

unread,

May 17, 2016, 6:13:31 PM5/17/16

to

Mmm. My last two face plants were near enough ten years apart so I'm not as expert on face plants as some of the incompetent and careless and reckless riders on RBT, and I retain the breakfall reflexes drilled into me in my athletic youth, which might account for something. But in neither case was my face marked, nor my glasses broken. (In one incident I broke both my little fingers. A breakfall from a bicycle is never as tidy as in the dojo. In fact, in the last one, the bloody bicycle did me more damage than the road, by scraping my shin.) The secret? A well-fitted and tightly strapped up, rounded helmet with a fairly wide visor and a thick navy-cut beard. Yeah, yeah, I know you fellows don't want to hear that, but I've been in plastic surgery, and it is really rather painful for a long time and then severely uncomfortable for an even longer time, and, if you're less confident and beloved by women than I am, your self-confidence may not recover either, so I reckon the right helmet is good value, especially since I would anyway wear a hat every time I leave the house because I'm so fairskinned that I burn easily even here in Ireland.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar