That's not what I've seen here - although I admit your universe seems
very different from most in many ways! In our local news, all traffic
fatalities seem to get about the same level of publicity. It's true
that the level is usually minimal, typically about 15 seconds of TV news
time and about two or three column inches in the newspaper, unless there
is something unusual or sensational about the event.
Here's an example, from the most prominent news organization: "State
troopers say drug use is suspected in a crash that claimed the life of a
Toledo area man along the Ohio Turnpike in Jackson Township. The Ohio
State Highway Patrol says Edwin Clayton, 69, of Holland, Ohio was killed
Monday when his pickup truck went off the eastbound lanes of the
turnpike, striking an embankment and a tree. One lane of the tollway was
shut down at around 2 p.m. while authorities investigated the crash."
That's it. Less than 30 seconds on the news.
>> ... I've seen news articles talking about bicyclists being killed
>> even though the bicyclists was walking his bike at the time, so was
>> actually a pedestrian when hit.
>
> See? That is one of the many things I mean with poor reporting.
You missed the point, Joerg. You're claiming _bicycle_ accidents are
poorly reported. The incident I was alluding to was _not_ a bicycle
accident, any more than a pedestrian killed in the rain is an "umbrella
accident." If you're walking a bike, you're a pedestrian.
>> Overall, I believe the importance attached to bike crashes is a bit
>> excessive. At least one study counted every tiny scratch as an injury
>> worth reporting, and any tiny scratch that a nurse looked at as a
>> "serious injury." That's excessive.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Serious studies don't that.
The study in question was Hoffman et. al., "Bicycle Commuter Injury
Prevention," Journal of Trauma 2010;69: 1112-1119. That was the one
that took special care to frequently contact every person in the study
to be sure that NO tiny injury was missed, not even little scratches.
After this generated complaints of fear mongering, one of the authors
said "John Mayberry MD about the Hoffman, et. al. Portland study
Co-author John Mayberry said "One criticism mentioned above I would like
to rebut is our inclusion of minor injuries in traumatic events. We
really had to do that to get statistical power in the analysis. Our
premise was that any traumatic event COULD HAVE been serious and
therefore correlated with serious traumatic events. Fortunately most
bike crashes only result in skinned knees or elbows, but it only takes a
few millimeters difference in trajectory or a few more Newtons of force
to convert a sprain to a fracture or a contusion to a ruptured spleen."
(Emphasis mine.)
In other words, they had to include any tiny injury to get enough
injuries to study. And gosh, let's pretend that any tiny injury COULD
HAVE been serious. (What other activity has that idiotic criterion?)
And BTW, he did admit that even a tiny scratch or abrasion was labeled
"serious" in the study if (say) it was shown to any nurse or doctor.
How does that make sense, except as deliberate fear mongering?
>
>> And of course, the average American still thinks of bicycling as being a
>> major source of serious brain injury and fatalities, even though
>> bicycling generates only 0.6% of America's TBI fatalities.
>>
>
> A brief lesson in statistics.
Joerg, there is no way you're qualified to give me a lesson in statistics.
> The answer is in documents such as this:
>
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/case15.pdf
>
> Quote "U.S. bicycle miles traveled range between 5.8 and 21.3 billion
> per year" and a few lines down, quote "For comparison, U.S. passenger
> vehicles traveled an estimated 2,061 billion miles in 1991"
We know that there are more miles driven than bicycled. We also know
there are more miles driven than walked.
But if you examine the lifetime risk of serious or fatal Traumatic Brain
Injury, you're most likely to get the TBI inside a motor vehicle.
(You're even more likely to get it in your home.)
If you examine the risk per mile traveled, you're more likely to suffer
fatal TBI while walking a mile than by biking a mile. That's also
probably true for non-fatal but serious TBI, although nobody seems to
track that for pedestrians. Why? Because there's no money to be made by
selling pedestrian helmets... yet.
If you examine the cost to society, we pay FAR more to care for motor
vehicle TBI than for bicycling TBI. That's despite seat belts and air
bags. We also pay far more for pedestrian TBI than bike TBI.
BTW, regarding automotive serious TBI: Again, it's second only to
in-home serious TBI. But people are never told never wear helmets
inside cars.
In fact, I'll bet that even the dedicated bike helmet fans reading this,
when driving their car to the start of a bike ride, don't bother to wear
their helmet. They've already paid for it. It might provide _some_
protection. Nobody will see them looking funny. And if they did, we'd
soon have lots of anecdotes saying "Oooh, my helmet got a dent! It
probably saved my life!"
So why not wear it in the car?
--
- Frank Krygowski