Cycling is dangerous
Garry Jones
I am trying to answer an fairly active recreational cyclist who has made
this claim in the Swedish cycling newsgroup.
I don't think he is correct and I would like some facts and data that
back up my thoughts about this. The cyclist who posted this says he
always wears his helmet, even when cycling to the local store for some
bananas. He is an active sky diver, but does not wear his helmet then
because he has time to protect his head with his hands if necessary when
landing.
There are other posters than I am discussing things with who are in
favour of the proposed mandatory helmet law in Sweden.
Personly I think that cycling (with or without a helmet) is a safer long
term activity than playing computer games or watching TV, but now I want
some feedback from others.
I also feel that a mandatory helmet law would be a dangerous thing
because people would stop cycling.
Garry Jones
English Cyclist ResIDING in Sweden.
n...@no.spam
Life is dangerous. People gets killed in auto crashes, etc.
Is your friend advocating avoiding autos because of the danger?
Cycling is great exercise. If you don't exercise, you could die
from heart disease, etc.
Robert Chambers
I am a very dedicated rider ... to the tune of 10,000 to 13,000 miles per
year. I could race if I had the inclination. I train with plenty of folks
who race at pretty high levels. Mostly I like to do fast centuries. I
don't have the wreckless abondon I see most good racers exhibit.
The point is I've spent many, many hours on the road in a suburban to rural
environment. Five years ago I was riding in a paceline when the lead rider
fell going over some RR tracks. To avoid the pileup I had to make an
evasive move that caused me to hit the tracks at a very bad angle. I went
down, my knee and head went into the pavement. My kneecap was shattered
into many little pieces. My head was fine thanks to my helmet. We could
debate all day if this could have been forseen or avoided. It happened.
A year ago this very day I was finishing up a 50 mile ride. At 2:30 in the
afternoon on a nice, bright afternoon I was coming down a little hill
through an intersection with a new traffic light. I had a green light. A
van passed me (going my direction) just as I was reaching the intersection.
An oncoming car driven by a teenager talking on a cell phone decided to make
a left turn -- immediately after the van passed. She hit me head on. I
went off her windshield and, according to witnesses, went about 20 feet
straight up and landed squarely on my head. Witnesses thought sure I was
dead. I sustained a broken hip, broken pelvis, broken ankle, compression
fracture of the spine and a major laceration of the lower leg. My helmet
was shattered. My head was fine. I recovered and had personal best rides
throughout most of this season (at age 47).
In my opinion, anyone who says cycling isn't potentially dangerous is in
serious denial. 4,000 pound hunks of metal are hurtling down the road next
to you in the control of inattentive idiots. If you aren't mindful of the
potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone who does
anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
locked up.
Finally, there's a guy here in the states who had a well-known website
dedicated to promoting the relative safety of cycling. If you search,
you'll probably not have any real trouble finding it. I believe Sheldon
Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the site was
run over and killed a few weeks back.
I love cycling and I'm willing to assume some of the risks. I'm not stupid
enough to deny they're there. I take precautions to try to insure that I'm
seen and that I'm reasonably protected if something were to happen. In both
my major crashes, I might have been far more seriously hurt ... or even
killed ... were it not for my helmet.
Bob C.
"Garry Jones" <mor...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:3F8C2690...@algonet.se...
Bob M
Even if you exercise, you could die of heart disease. Exercise simply
lowers the risk, but many athletes have died of heart disease (a la Jim
Fixx; see: http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0109183.html).
--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply
David Kerber
says...
...
> In my opinion, anyone who says cycling isn't potentially dangerous is in
> serious denial. 4,000 pound hunks of metal are hurtling down the road next
> to you in the control of inattentive idiots. If you aren't mindful of the
> potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone who does
> anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
> locked up.
I absolutely agree with you, but he said "dangerous", not "potentially
dangerous", which are not quite the same thing, so you are answering a
different question from the one he asked...
--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @hotmail.com Buck
You will find links to health statistics and death statistics. From there
you can show the relative risk of a sedentary lifestyle. You can also find
the relative risk of getting killed while cycling. You are going to find
that being sedentary is a risky business and that driving a car is the thing
that is most likely to get you killed. Cycling is relatively safe.
-Buck
"Garry Jones" <mor...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:3F8C2690...@algonet.se...
Doug Purdy
news:bmhbll$avgj$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone who
does
> anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
> locked up.
It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would otherwise.
Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike" without someone getting
fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear a helmet.
They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and other
illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I say I wear my
helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I would wear a helmet then
too.
Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets? Even riders
crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the lights, they must be safe,
they're wearing helmets.
> Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the site was
> run over and killed a few weeks back.
IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more an argument
to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle you use.
IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory. Kids need
them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a very dangerous place
to ride). People should wear them offroad and racing (other dangerous
places). A mandatory helmet law would address none of those high risk
occasions. It would continue to encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets
to the exclusion of riskier behaviour.
Doug
Toronto
Pete
"Dangerous in relation to what?"
Proceed from there.
Pete
Robert Chambers
news:bc%ib.108611$ko%.66680@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Geez, talk about hyperbole!
I don't blow stop signs or stop lights. In low light situations, I ALWAYS
use lights -- both front and rear. I wear the loudest, most visible colors
I can find. I never said one word about making helmet use mandatory. I DID
say that I thought anyone who would discourage others from wearing helmets
when they ride should be locked up. Make a choice for yourself. Don't try
to inflict your ignorance on others. If you ride and you haven't had the
experience of hitting your head, it doesn't mean it can't happen or won't
happen. I'm the voice of experience saying it CAN happen and it DOES
happen. Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
Bob C.
Fred
I think laws should be designed to protect people from other people not from
themselves. I'm against helmet laws philosophically. I'm not against
helmets, though, and wear one whenever I ride.
Fred
Scott Munro
wrote:
>I think laws should be designed to protect people from other people not from
>themselves. I'm against helmet laws philosophically. I'm not against
>helmets, though, and wear one whenever I ride.
I'm not a libertarian, so I'm not necessarily against laws which
protect people from their own bad decisions. However, there should
always be a presumption in favor of liberty. If helmet-law advocates
can show that requiring helmets would prevent a substantial number of
deaths or serious injuries, I might be for them. Until then, I'm
against.
And I also wear a helmet (and believe that it saved me from a nasty
head injury on one occasion), though I'm not sure they're necessary
for everyone.
--
"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell,
Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very
well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."
--Gen. Wesley Clark at a GOP fundraiser, May 11, 2001
Pete
"Scott Munro" <toomu...@gljkhsgdlgh.com> wrote
>
> I'm not a libertarian, so I'm not necessarily against laws which
> protect people from their own bad decisions. However, there should
> always be a presumption in favor of liberty. If helmet-law advocates
> can show that requiring helmets would prevent a substantial number of
> deaths or serious injuries, I might be for them. Until then, I'm
> against.
Statistics can lie/mislead either way.
The infamous "85%" still reigns supreme in the US.
Pete
Robert Chambers
"Kevan Smith" <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:to9pov0abltiq2e3s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net>
from
> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>
> >Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
>
>
>
>
> --
> real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com
> The Osmonds! You are all Osmonds!! Throwing up on a freeway at dawn!!!
Steve Knight
>I also feel that a mandatory helmet law would be a dangerous thing
>because people would stop cycling.
have it here in oregon (usa) and no problems and bikes get sold all the time.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Robert Chambers
"Kevan Smith" <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:to9pov0abltiq2e3s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net>
from
> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>
> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
>
>
Complete bullshit! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely certain I
wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I was
run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my head.
That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't have
to piece my skull back together.
Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
Bob C.
Pete
"Steve Knight" <ste...@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
news:c2fpovsqvlin0dlll...@4ax.com...
>
> >I also feel that a mandatory helmet law would be a dangerous thing
> >because people would stop cycling.
>
> have it here in oregon (usa) and no problems and bikes get sold all the
time.
Sold.
Ridden more or less than before the law is the real question. (and taking
into account all the other factors)
Pete
Kaputnik
it, and find it interesting.
I love cycling, and have no intention of giving it up. It is not,
however, the only alternative to being sedentary. If I went for long
walks every day, I would certainly reduce my chances of dying from
general poor health (as compared to no exercise). And, where I live,
I could do most of it on relatively safe trails that are closed to
motor vehicles.
I accept that my favorite exercise does involve an increased risk of
accidental death or injury. I do my best to minimize this by using a
helmet, proper lighting where applicable, and developing safe riding
habits in general. Even so, if it were a purely pragmatic decision, to
find a fitness program that would keep me healthy while minimizing the
risk of accidents, bicycling would not be my choice. If I really
wanted to avoid traffic accidents, and could handle the boredom, I
could probably do quite well with indoor equipment.
As for driving a car, yes that certainly is dangerous. But I also
find it indispensable at this time. It certainly seems more dangerous
than cycling, with over 37,000 driver or passenger traffic crash
victims in 2002 compared with 662 "pedalcyclists". What isn't clear
from this, though, is how many cyclists are actually riding on roads
shared by motor vehicles. The smaller number of cyclist victims is
probably due in part to the smaller number of cyclists out there.
Returning to my first point, there were 4808 pedestrian victims, so
walking might seem to be more dangerous than cycling. But again, you
have to ask if there were not in fact more pedestrians out there. And
these accidents were presumably not on limited access trails.
Statistics can be fun, but it's not always clear at first what they
really mean.
"Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> wrote in message news:<t%Wib.32733$592....@twister.austin.rr.com>...
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>He is an active sky diver, but does not wear his helmet then
>because he has time to protect his head with his hands if necessary when
>landing.
That statement is idiotic and makes me question if the person that made it has
ever skydived. A skydiver's hands are on the risers before (controlling
direction and speed), during (flaring for the softest possible touchdown), and
after (spilling air from the chute to avoid being dragged by a gust of wind)
the landing. He thinks he can judge the moment of touchdown so precisely that
he can safely remove his hands from the risers at the instant of impact to
protect his head and then find those risers again to spill his chute and not
get dragged? If that's true then he's obviously blessed with such fantastic
depth perception and lightening quick reflexes that he should have no problem
doing the exact same thing in a fall from a bike.
If cycling is so dangerous why are there relatively few serious
injuries/fatalities? Of course people get injured and killed while cycling but
many more people get injured and killed when they slip and fall in their homes.
Is reaching into a kitchen cupboard, climbing stairs, or mopping a bathroom
floor "dangerous"?
Looking at the numbers it would seem that he's either seriously inflating the
risk of cycling or has a unique definition of "dangerous".
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Frank Krygowski
> How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
>
> I am trying to answer an fairly active recreational cyclist who has made
> this claim in the Swedish cycling newsgroup.
>
> I don't think he is correct and I would like some facts and data that
> back up my thoughts about this.
His statement is poorly phrased, at the _very_ least. As others have
said, anything can be called "dangerous." The only way to evaluate the
"danger" in an activity is by comparison to other activities. And, to
be perfectly clear: comparing to _one_ other activity may be
insufficient. For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense.
Try this site:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm
Or try the new site http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mainframes.html#1014.html
You may also find good information at the European Cyclists Union,
http://www.ecf.com/
Check out their "Statements and Positions" link (toward the bottom right
of the home page).
Also: http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/roadsafety.html
--
Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> In my opinion, anyone who says cycling isn't potentially dangerous is in
> serious denial. 4,000 pound hunks of metal are hurtling down the road next
> to you in the control of inattentive idiots. If you aren't mindful of the
> potential dangers, you're asking for trouble.
Oh, please.
You decide to engage in risky behavior, like fast riding in a close
paceline crossing RR tracks, and you say _cycling_ is dangerous? Sorry,
_your_ cycling was dangerous at that point; but you certainly
shouldn't extrapolate to others with more sense. Your "Speed Racer"
fantasies have no relevance for most of the world's cyclists.
Likewise, it's unfortunate that you were hit by a car - but it was
similarly unfortunate that I've had at least four friends killed due to
riding in cars. And it's just as unfortunate for the 35,000 or so
Americans who die in cars each year.
Should car riders be mindful of the potential dangers? Certainly. Is
car riding "dangerous"? Not so much that people should wear protective
gear, apparently!
> Also, I think anyone who does
> anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
> locked up.
Hmmm. If you think at all, you don't do it enough to develop a
tolerance of others' views, do you?
But you've got me curious. When you say "discourage another rider" what
exactly do you mean? For example: say someone asks me "Do I really need
to wear a helmet when I ride my bike 100 yards to the restroom in this
deserted campground?" If I say "No" should I really be jailed? Or are
you just expressing yourself incompetently?
> Finally, there's a guy here in the states who had a well-known website
> dedicated to promoting the relative safety of cycling. If you search,
> you'll probably not have any real trouble finding it. I believe Sheldon
> Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the site was
> run over and killed a few weeks back.
First, as I've said, I can quickly think of four friends who died while
riding in motor vehicles. This is sad and regrettable, but it is not in
itself proof that motoring is unacceptably dangerous.
Second, I considered Ken Kifer to be a good friend. Your use of his
death in this manner is despicable as well as stupid.
--
Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Don't try to inflict your ignorance on others.
Can we politely ask you to obey your own advice?
You've given absolutely no indication that you know _anything_ factual
about the subject line. That is, you appear to be speaking from
near-total ignorance.
Learn something about the relative safety of cycling compared to other
activities. Learn about the risk levels of cycling compared to the risk
levels of _not_ cycling. Learn about the cost to society of
discouraging cycling. Only then will you, perhaps, be qualified to comment.
> Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
I'm not surprised that you can't imagine a logical reason. That,
however, is hardly proof that logical reasons don't exist.
--
Frank Krygowski
Tom Keats
Garry Jones <mor...@algonet.se> writes:
> How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
Take him for a ride with you. Observe whatever 2-abreast
laws exist in your jurisdiction. Lead him not unto
temptation, but deliver him from evil.
cheers,
Tom
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Zoot Katz
<91eb79fc.03101...@posting.google.com>,
kaput...@netzero.net (Kaputnik) wrote:
>Statistics can be fun, but it's not always clear at first what they
>really mean.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS or SOCIAL ENGINEERING?
A Critical Review of a Statistics Canada
"Factors Associated with Bicycle Helmet Use"
by Avery Burdett
Zoot Katz
Frank Krygowski <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
>than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
>doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense
Nope, swimming isn't dangerous. It's one's inability to swim that is a
risky proposition.
Drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional death for
Canadians under 60 years of age, surpassed only by motor vehicle
collisions and poisoning.
--
zk
W K
"Kaputnik" <kaput...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:91eb79fc.03101...@posting.google.com...
> I do my best to minimize this by using a
> helmet, proper lighting where applicable, and developing safe riding
> habits in general.
In reverse order I hope.
David Kerber
potato.com says...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> from
> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>
> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
>
You may not believe that they give protection, but most people do,
including me. Perhaps not as much as some advocates claim, but more
than none. ISTM to be irresponsible to actively discourage people
from wearing a helmet.
Robert Chambers
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net>
from
> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kevan Smith" <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> >news:to9pov0abltiq2e3s...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
<tech...@wctel.net>
> >from
> >> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> >> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
> >>
> >> Because the "prevention" isn't.
> >>
> >
> >Complete bullshit! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely
certain I
> >wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
> >sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I
was
> >run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
> >intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my
head.
> >That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
> >surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't
have
> >to piece my skull back together.
> >
> >Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
>
weighing
> under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in
the
> real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the
forces
> on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the
others that
> it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
> --
> real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com
Robert Chambers
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net>
from
> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>
> >
> >"Kevan Smith" <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> >news:to9pov0abltiq2e3s...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers"
<tech...@wctel.net>
> >from
> >> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> >> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
> >>
> >> Because the "prevention" isn't.
> >>
> >
> >Complete bullshit! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely
certain I
> >wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
> >sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I
was
> >run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
> >intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my
head.
> >That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
> >surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't
have
> >to piece my skull back together.
> >
> >Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
>
weighing
> under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in
the
> real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the
forces
> on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the
others that
> it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
> --
> real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com
> It's NO USE ... I've gone to "CLUB MED"!!
All I do in response to this is shake my head in a combination of disgust
and amazement.
Robert Chambers
Robert Chambers
and its relative dangers. I've experienced them first hand. I can't stand
enduring all the idiots out here who think they know something about it when
they spin a few miles a week and haven't had a life-threatening accident ...
yet somehow they're experts.
Bob C.
"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:3f8cc8c9$1...@news.ysu.edu...
Zippy the Pinhead
> Of course people get injured and killed while cycling but
>many more people get injured and killed when they slip and fall in their homes.
>Is reaching into a kitchen cupboard, climbing stairs, or mopping a bathroom
>floor "dangerous"?
Your heart is in the right place, but you're using specious arguments.
"Many more people" reach into kitchen cupboards, climb stairs and mop
bathrooms than ride bicycles.
You'd need to compare injuries per, for example, hours of exposure to
hazard in order to draw defensible conclusions about the relative
safety of activities. I'm not pretending to know what these numbers
are, mind you, nor am I disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just
pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.
Zippy the Pinhead
wrote:
>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:57:52 -0400, <3f8cc234$1...@news.ysu.edu>,
>Frank Krygowski <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
>>For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
>>than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
>>doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense
>
>Nope, swimming isn't dangerous. It's one's inability to swim that is a
>risky proposition.
Speaking as a former rescuer, it's often the "good swimmer" who
drowns. He (this is a statistically valid pronoun, if not a
politically correct one) is a "good swimmer" and therefore needn't
wear a PFD aboard a ski boat. He's a good swimmer so he knows he can
get out of trouble if the ice is a bit thin where the fish are biting.
And so forth. As a Rescue Diver, I can count on one hand the bodies
I've participated in finding and recovering who wouldn't still be
alive if they'd been a bit more "cowardly" and worn flotation.
You cannot generalize that directly to helmets, but there's some
overlap.
Ian
riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
bad.
Example: 25 years of car driving, approx: 750,000 miles driven, one
fender-bender, no scratches, no anything. Bicycling, 25 years, 75,000 miles,
approx: 15 mishaps, amounting in numerous road rash incidents, a broken
nose, leg, arm, twisted ankles, stuff like that. That's a 150:1 that the
cyclist will suffer a form of injury versus driving a car.
The airline industry got caught when they created a statistic showing air
travel to be safer than driving. On a per mile basis, yes it is, as a
typical flight is hundred's of miles in distance versus the typical car trip
being in the ten's of miles. However, on a "per trip", or "usage" basis,
statistics show airline travel to be more dangerous than driving a car.
Further, if airline travel was averaged out to the extent that cars are used
in our society, then the risk of flying becomes so unbelievably dangerous
most of us would prefer to stay in bed.
Rule # 1: Statistics can be your friend or your enemy, and can be compiled
to meet the needs of the user;
Rule # 2: Using cars as the argument for the safety of bicycling is bound to
back-fire;
Rule # 3: Most things that are fun also add an element of danger.
"Kaputnik" <kaput...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:91eb79fc.03101...@posting.google.com...
Roger Zoul
:: "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> wrote in message
:: news:bmhbll$avgj$1...@news3.infoave.net...
::: potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone
::: who does anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet
::: ought to be locked up.
:: It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
:: jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would
:: otherwise. Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike"
:: without someone getting fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear a
:: helmet.
::
:: They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and other
:: illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I say I wear
:: my helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I would wear a
:: helmet then too.
::
:: Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets? Even
:: riders crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the lights, they
:: must be safe, they're wearing helmets.
::: Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the
::: site was run over and killed a few weeks back.
:: IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more an
:: argument to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle you use.
::
:: IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory.
:: Kids need them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a
:: very dangerous place to ride). People should wear them offroad and
:: racing (other dangerous places). A mandatory helmet law would
:: address none of those high risk occasions. It would continue to
:: encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets to the exclusion of
:: riskier behaviour.
I'm new to bicycling...only been doing it for about a month....obviously a
newbie compared to you....
However, having a requriement to wear a helmet highlights the need for
safety....as far as I know, people on bicycles are required to follow the
same traffic laws as those in MV.....so what can be done to address safety
further? ..Frankly, I just don't see your point....
::
:: Doug
:: Toronto
Roger Zoul
:: On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0400, "Robert Chambers"::
:::
::: "Kevan Smith" <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
:: You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped
:: form weighing under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The
:: forces of crashes in the real world are usually much greater.
:: However, since no one measured the forces on your head or that
:: absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the others that it
:: "saved your life" is pure speculation. --
Maybe he did get lucky....however, had he not wored that helmet, his changes
of getting lucky would have been much less.
Bottom line: I'm wearing a helmet.....
David Kerber
<jYbjb.113506$ko%.98205@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
lim...@NoSpamrogers.com says...
> If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
> riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
> bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
>
> The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
> mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
> bad.
I would tend to agree with you on a "per mile" basis, but perhaps not
on a "per trip" basis. There's a similarity there between the airline
vs car stats and the car vs bike stats.
37 years of bike riding vs 26 of driving: I have had two accidents on
a bike, one of them with a road rash which healed faster than the
times I've bashed my finger in the car door, and one which left me in
the ER for 1/2 day for observation, but no injuries beyond a bad
bruise, and one accident in a car with no injuries. I have no idea
what the miles of each one, though there are obviously many more in
the car than on the bike, probably even more of a difference than your
10x.
On a number of trips basis, though, it's going to be much closer.
When I was a kid, a bike was my only transportation, so there were
literally hundreds of trips over the years to school (180 days per
school year times 4 years, with some days of multiple trips, plus
trips on weekends for sports events, dances, etc), friends houses,
shopping, etc. Even in college, my car would stay parked for two
weeks at a time while I made multiple trips per day on my bike to and
from classes, shopping, etc.
It's only been in the 19 years since I was out of college that my car
became my primary transportation, and in the last two years it's
decreased as I've been riding my bike more.
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
>riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
>bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
Or, most applicably for recreational cyclists, per hour.
I spent a few minutes looking for such statistics this
morning, but failed to; all I could find was a count of
injuries among the whole US population, divided into
activities; I didn't spend much time on it, though.
>The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
>mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
>bad.
Possibly; more likely so for "per hour".
>Rule # 1: Statistics can be your friend or your enemy, and can be compiled
>to meet the needs of the user;
Corollary 1: The statistics rarely contain complete qualifications
Corollary 2: Statistics are usually gathered to make a point, and
published with that in mind
Corollary 3: Statistics usually apply to whole populations;
individuals are often subject to _different_ risks than
the statistic due to different conditions/people/etc.
>Rule # 3: Most things that are fun also add an element of danger.
...especially true when bicycling.
--
Rick Onanian
David Kerber
roger...@hotmail.com says...
The main problem is that too many cyclists DON'T follow the same
rules: they blow through traffic lights and stop signs, ride on the
wrong side of the road, etc.
Additionally, cyclists need to be more defensive when riding than cars
do, because we don't have the armor to protect us if some idiot pulls
out in front of us when we have the right-of-way on the road.
Roger Zoul
:: In article <bmjja4$ntke7$1...@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>,
I see.. I guess I'm fortunate to have found my way here....to learn what NOT
to do (even though, honestly, this seems pretty obvious to me!)
::
:: Additionally, cyclists need to be more defensive when riding than
:: cars
:: do, because we don't have the armor to protect us if some idiot pulls
:: out in front of us when we have the right-of-way on the road.
Right.
Claire Petersky
news:3F8C2690...@algonet.se...
> How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
Here's a quote from another post I made on this topic.
So, apparently the compelling question is, how dangerous is cycling
compared to other activities of daily life? A 1999 study in Britain of
emergency room incidents came up with these statistics: While 172
cyclists were killed in 1999, 5,945 people were hospitalised after
trouser-related accidents and 13,132 from injuries inflicted by
vegetables and 96,000 from accidents occurring while they were
sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.
Here's more:
"The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by
armchairs, down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries
'leave little room for complacency', New Scientist says today, adding
that injuries inflicted by vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at
13,132. Hospital admissions caused by socks and tights rose from 9,843
to 10,773, while birdbath accidents almost trebled to 311."
You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to
an alarming 37. 146 were hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet
roll holder related injuries.
So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of
cycling while being stuck in some malodorous steel box in an
interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation?
Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free!
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
David Kerber
roger...@hotmail.com says...
Me, too, but apparently it's not. I see quite a few experienced
cyclists along my regular riding route running through red lights.
Just this last weekend I was waiting at the red light when I saw a
roadie coming the opposite direction. He rode up the right shoulder
(with cars waiting in both the straight-through lane and the left
turn lane), slowed down a bit to look for cross traffic, and then
turned left onto the cross road in front of three lines of cars at the
head of the various lines at the light. I wanted to scream at him,
but was too slow reacting.
It seems to be mostly the less-experienced ones (kids mostly, though
not strictly) who ride on the wrong side of the road.
Brian Huntley
>
> Drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional death for
> Canadians under 60 years of age, surpassed only by motor vehicle
> collisions and poisoning.
Oh, hush up, get in the car, and eat your mushrooms - we're going to the beach.
Zippy the Pinhead
wrote:
>
>>The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
>>mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
>>bad.
>
>Possibly; more likely so for "per hour".
An hour in a car is a day on the bike, if miles traveled is the
criterion. I suppose "hour" is the better measure. If life lost is
the numerator, then the denominator is better expressed in some
dimension that is a fraction of life. Hour's as good as any.
Stephen Harding
> Complete bullshit! You can believe what you like. I'm absolutely certain I
> wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
> sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I was
> run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
> intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my head.
> That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
> surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't have
> to piece my skull back together.
Can't count the number of times people come up to me during organized rides
that I participate in, telling me of how helmet use has already saved their
lives.
At times, I think a helmet probably could save your life. The same would be
true if you wore one while driving your car.
But only "at times". They're nowhere near the "live savers" they're made out
to be, and promoters of helmet use end up promoting an image of bicycling as
an activity that is so dangerous, you don't dare get on a bike without one (yet
you will happily hop in your automobile without any such concern).
> Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
Several years ago, the front fork of a beater bike of mine broke while I rode
it at a very low speed. As the front wheel came out from under me, and the
front of the bike plunged down to the asphalt road, a stem nut caught my
head just above the eyebrow making a gash that required 15 stitches in the
emergency room.
Answering questions from the emergency room nurse, I was lectured on the evils
of not wearing a helmet, even though the nature of the crash made helmet use
irrelevant (my head struck the stem nut from a direction *below* the helmet;
a helmet would not have protected me from such an *upward* blow).
I personally am no doubt an emergency room statistic *in favor* of wearing a
helmet. Fifteen stitches resulted from a bicycle crash with rider NOT wearing
a helmet. More [erroneous] evidence for the error of such behavior.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> > under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in the
> > real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the forces
> > on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the others that
> > it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
>
> and amazement.
Yet that is pretty much the engineering bottom line for what a helmet can do
for you. You can be amazed at it, but disgust seems a bit much.
If you really are disgusted by such behavior, I must ask, do you wear a helmet
when traveling (driver or passenger) in an automobile? If not why?
Do you believe head injuries do not occur in motor vehicle accidents?
SMH
Rick Onanian
<cpet...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>Here's a quote from another post I made on this topic.
>
>So, apparently the compelling question is, how dangerous is cycling
>compared to other activities of daily life? A 1999 study in Britain of
>emergency room incidents came up with these statistics: While 172
>cyclists were killed in 1999, 5,945 people were hospitalised after
>trouser-related accidents and 13,132 from injuries inflicted by
>vegetables and 96,000 from accidents occurring while they were
Were the injuries really inflicted by vegetables, or were they
sustained while handling vegetables? My gf constantly cuts herself
while attempting to cut vegetables...
Anyway, it sounds to me like vegetarians are in grave danger. They
should immediately switch to eating cheeseburgers.
>sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.
<more humorous statistics snipped>
That doesn't tell you what the statistics are for bicycling; that
tells you what the statistics are for a whole population, most of
which doesn't ride, most of the rest of which spends much more time
sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around than bicycling.
Without knowing how many hours were spent bicycling, you can't tell
how dangerous bicycling is from an injury tally. You need both
pieces of data, and if you want to compare it to some other
activity, like vegetable-related activities, then you would need
both pieces of data for vegetables too.
>So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of
>cycling while being stuck in some malodorous steel box in an
>interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation?
>
>Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free!
I'll do the second one, and I'll apply appropriate safety
precautions such as careful riding, proper equipment maintenance,
and wearing safety equipment that I find comfortable (gloves, shoes,
helmet, clothes). I would, however, oppose a mandatory helmet law,
which this thread began with...
--
Rick Onanian
Stephen Harding
> If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
> riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
> bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
You need to compare on a per hour of use basis, since per mile or per trip
(which still has a per mile of comparison component to it) doesn't normalize
for differences in exposure to danger.
Say I ride 15 miles in one hour. The car covers that distance in perhaps
10-30 minutes. So while I'm pedaling home from my ride, still exposed to
being run down by someone, the car user is sitting on the sofa watching
TV, with his danger of being in a car accident being nil.
Pretty much the same for that one trip: by car, 15 minutes; by bike, 60.
Not a fair comparison.
SMH
Steve Knight
>You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped form weighing
>under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in the
>real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the forces
>on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the others that
>it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
I guess he would have been fine landing on his head without a helmet. makes
sense to me. I take it you have never hit your head hard? a helmet is far
preferable to direct ground/object contact. this is as obvious as the nose on
your face. but if you don't wish to see it that's your choice. Myself I think
your foolish but your free to be so.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Stephen Harding
>
> >He is an active sky diver, but does not wear his helmet then
> >because he has time to protect his head with his hands if necessary when
> >landing.
[...]
> the landing. He thinks he can judge the moment of touchdown so precisely that
> he can safely remove his hands from the risers at the instant of impact to
> protect his head and then find those risers again to spill his chute and not
> get dragged? If that's true then he's obviously blessed with such fantastic
> depth perception and lightening quick reflexes that he should have no problem
> doing the exact same thing in a fall from a bike.
The depth perception issue while parachuting is *very* real! It's something
most people don't really think too much about.
In the realm of common experience, we can figure out when we're going to
land only from familiar heights, such as jumping off a table, off a [low]
tree branch, or possibly a one story house roof. The calculation is probably
based more on air time than actual depth perception.
In fact, from higher "altitudes", predicting when you'll hit the ground is
really, really tricky!! I suppose it gets better with experience (my experience
is a single jump only), but this problem was far trickier than I would have
thought.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:57:52 -0400, <3f8cc234$1...@news.ysu.edu>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>
> >For example, swimming is reckoned to be four times worse
> >than cyling, in terms of deaths per million hours activity; yet that
> >doesn't make swimming dangerous in any absolute sense
>
> Nope, swimming isn't dangerous. It's one's inability to swim that is a
> risky proposition.
>
> Canadians under 60 years of age, surpassed only by motor vehicle
> collisions and poisoning.
Poisoning??!!!
No refrigeration after the winter snows melt in August? Eating wild
mushrooms? Draino cocktails? A little arsenic by a not so loving wife?
What's going on up there in the Great White North?
SMH
Steve Knight
>Sold.
>Ridden more or less than before the law is the real question. (and taking
>into account all the other factors)
I see more riders then I used to when the law was not in effect. Most have
helmets but not all.
Pete
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote
>
> Answering questions from the emergency room nurse, I was lectured on the
evils
> of not wearing a helmet, even though the nature of the crash made helmet
use
> irrelevant (my head struck the stem nut from a direction *below* the
helmet;
> a helmet would not have protected me from such an *upward* blow).
>
> I personally am no doubt an emergency room statistic *in favor* of wearing
a
> helmet. Fifteen stitches resulted from a bicycle crash with rider NOT
wearing
> a helmet. More [erroneous] evidence for the error of such behavior.
Several years ago, bumping up onto a curb, I mistimed the frontwheel lift,
and went over the front.
Result - chipped tooth on landing.
As I had the helmet on (military requirement) I suppose I counted am in the
other camp. Non serious head injury while wearing a helmet.
Of COURSE the helmet saved my life! ;)
Pete
Sorni
"Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> top-posted in message
news:bmjcjg$bvvu$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> Hey frank ... try reading the entire thread. I know plenty about cycling
> and its relative dangers. I've experienced them first hand. I can't
stand
> enduring all the idiots out here who think they know something about it
when
> they spin a few miles a week and haven't had a life-threatening accident
...
> yet somehow they're experts.
Hey robert...
I agree with your helmet position, but why are all your notes preceded with
a "blank" post (no new content)?
Bill "not even mentioning the top-posting" S.
Mike Latondresse
news:3F8D730D...@cs.umass.edu:
>
> No refrigeration after the winter snows melt in August?
Don't be ridiculous, winter snow is always gone by the end of
June...its the ice on the ponds that doesn't melt till August.
Zoot Katz
Stephen Harding <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
>Poisoning??!!!
>
>No refrigeration after the winter snows melt in August? Eating wild
>mushrooms? Draino cocktails? A little arsenic by a not so loving wife?
>
>What's going on up there in the Great White North?
>
>
>SMH
Drug overdoses are counted as poisoning deaths.
--
zk
Tom Keats
Stephen Harding <har...@cs.umass.edu> writes:
> Poisoning??!!!
>
> No refrigeration after the winter snows melt in August? Eating wild
> mushrooms? Draino cocktails? A little arsenic by a not so loving wife?
>
> What's going on up there in the Great White North?
Accidentally making methanol instead of potable ethanol, botulism,
salmonella, bugs in the drinking water, kids huffing gasoline,
down-'n-outers huffing lysol, family restaurants, television, bad
E at raves, red tide oysters, and barbecuing indoors with no
ventilation. An obsessive-compulsive dentist who got his kicks by
boiling mercury on the kitchen stove in his apartment, and one guy
who thought it would be a good idea to do that helium-voice party
trick by inhaling straight from a helium tank instead of from a
little party balloon. Kids getting into household cleansers under
the kitchen sink, visually impaired people getting their pills
mixed up, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides. Rattlesnakes,
black widows, and brown recluse spiders.
And auto emissions.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Chris B.
<ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>In article <to9pov0abltiq2e3s...@4ax.com>, Kevan@mouse-
>potato.com says...
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:21:17 -0400, "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> from
>> Info Avenue Internet Services, LLC wrote:
>>
>> >Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
>> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
>>
>> Because the "prevention" isn't.
>
>You may not believe that they give protection, but most people do,
>including me. Perhaps not as much as some advocates claim, but more
>than none. ISTM to be irresponsible to actively discourage people
>from wearing a helmet.
ISTM to be irresponsible to promote the idea that the helmet is a
miracle cure-all (Bell helmets in a shop local to me still come in a
box with "Courage For Your Head" prominently displayed) simply because
of the promoter's faithful belief. Gee, I wonder which of these
actually happens in real life!
I couldn't possibly count the number of individuals and families
(okay, sometimes is just the children) I see who are obviously new to
cycling wearing the ever profitable helmet (tipped back to reveal
their foreheads), while having little clue how to ride a bicycle in
traffic or otherwise. I suspect that their inexperience and frequent
falls probably account for a great deal of the "my helmet saved my
life" testimonials seen here.
Chris B.
<roger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I'm new to bicycling...only been doing it for about a month....obviously a
>newbie compared to you....
>
>However, having a requriement to wear a helmet highlights the need for
>safety....as far as I know, people on bicycles are required to follow the
>same traffic laws as those in MV.....so what can be done to address safety
>further? ..Frankly, I just don't see your point....
I swear I hadn't read this when I wrote my reply to David Kerber!
LOL!
David Kerber
NOSPAM_THANKS-rogers.com says...
...
> >> >Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> >> >There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
> >>
> >> Because the "prevention" isn't.
> >
> >You may not believe that they give protection, but most people do,
> >including me. Perhaps not as much as some advocates claim, but more
> >than none. ISTM to be irresponsible to actively discourage people
> >from wearing a helmet.
>
> ISTM to be irresponsible to promote the idea that the helmet is a
> miracle cure-all (Bell helmets in a shop local to me still come in a
> box with "Courage For Your Head" prominently displayed) simply because
> of the promoter's faithful belief. Gee, I wonder which of these
> actually happens in real life!
There's no "promoter's faithful belief" here; I KNOW that Bell knows
better; they've been in the helmet business far too long (in
motorcycle and car racing) not to, but they let their marketing dept
go overboard with this campaign and it pisses me off to no end when I
see that logo on the box in my local stores. It certainly seems to
give the impression (especially to younger riders who may not know
better) that if you wear the helmet, you can ride however you want. I
agree that this is hugely irresponsible of them.
> I couldn't possibly count the number of individuals and families
> (okay, sometimes is just the children) I see who are obviously new to
> cycling wearing the ever profitable helmet (tipped back to reveal
> their foreheads), while having little clue how to ride a bicycle in
> traffic or otherwise. I suspect that their inexperience and frequent
> falls probably account for a great deal of the "my helmet saved my
> life" testimonials seen here.
Could well be, but what's wrong with protecting their heads while
they're learning to ride safely? Without that, they might not grow up
to be adult cyclists. (Yes, it's hyperbole but there's still an
element of truth in it).
Frank Krygowski
> If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus bicycle
> riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
> bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
Not according to the largest risk-consultation company in America.
See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>
> The 37,000 fatalities in cars versus 662 bicyclists, when calculated "per
> mile", "pre trip", or "usage", I would imagine make bicycling look extremely
> bad.
>
> Example: 25 years of car driving, approx: 750,000 miles driven, one
> fender-bender, no scratches, no anything. Bicycling, 25 years, 75,000 miles,
> approx: 15 mishaps, amounting in numerous road rash incidents, a broken
> nose, leg, arm, twisted ankles, stuff like that. That's a 150:1 that the
> cyclist will suffer a form of injury versus driving a car.
You don't make clear what this "example" is. Is it a collection of
hypothetical numbers? Or is it your own personal experience? Or is
it the experience of one cyclist you happen to know?
If it's any of those, it's essentially worthless. One data point
tells nothing, because any other data point can be used as equivalent
rebuttal.
For another example, my experience is this:
Bicycling, roughly 48 years, no telling how many miles (well over
50,000), four countries, hundreds of cities, many long tours. One
on-road moving fall at about 3 mph which scraped my knee and tore my
winter dress glove and jacket. Oh, and I guess I fell a few times
when I was a kid. I have a dim memory of some scrapes or scratches on
my leg.
By comparison, I did catch my finger in a car door, and I've hit my
head getting into a car. The finger was definitely painful.
My motorcycle experience is similar - two parking lot falls at 3 mph,
no injuries. And my walking: One significant knee injury while
hiking.
My point? Any single set of experiences is too limited to be useful
for this evaluation. In fact, it turns out that cycling fatalities
are so rare that it's hard to reach good conclusions - except to
conclude that they're rare, of course!
- Frank Krygowski
Shayne Wissler
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:927f127c.03101...@posting.google.com...
> For another example, my experience is this:
>
> Bicycling, roughly 48 years, no telling how many miles (well over
> 50,000), four countries, hundreds of cities, many long tours. One
> on-road moving fall at about 3 mph which scraped my knee and tore my
> winter dress glove and jacket. Oh, and I guess I fell a few times
> when I was a kid. I have a dim memory of some scrapes or scratches on
> my leg.
That's fantastic. Out of curiosity, do you wear a helmet?
Recently I rode too far and was over-tired coming home and ended up flying
over my handlebars after slamming on my brakes to avoid a head-on with a
slow-moving bus pulling out from the right, but didn't get a scratch
(somehow I managed to do some kind of cart-wheel move--don't ask me how I
got out of the pedals).
But the worst thing in my memory was a near-miss from about a month ago that
wasn't my fault: some guy ran a red light going about 40MPH. If I had been a
little quicker out of the stop light, I would have been spattered between
him and the car next to me, which he barely missed. This has made me very
cautious going through intersections. I like to wait for the traffic to
begin flowing before I go through. You really have to assume that some
driver is going to do something stupid.
Based on my experience I would guess that at least half of cycling accidents
are the fault of the cyclist, and perhaps half of the other half were
preventable by the cyclist practicing defensive riding. Is cycling
dangerous? If your riding skills aren't strong enough for what you're doing,
or you ride on the road with those crazy drivers it is.
Shayne Wissler
AMH
> How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
>
> this claim in the Swedish cycling newsgroup.
Try:
"Cycling is dangerous. However wearing a helmet is an added measure of
safety."
>
> I don't think he is correct and I would like some facts and data that
> back up my thoughts about this. The cyclist who posted this says he
> always wears his helmet, even when cycling to the local store for some
> bananas. He is an active sky diver, but does not wear his helmet then
> because he has time to protect his head with his hands if necessary when
> landing.
Please point out to him that in many cases skydivers are spun around
enough to cause them to black out. Kind of hard to protect your head
with your hands when unconsious.
<snip>
Sadly the most important factor in this whole equation is whether or
not it will be enforced. Here in the US the only cycling laws that are
enforced are the ones that create a danger to other people. ie. Riding
on the sidewalk, going through red lights etc. If the law is not
enforced then it will have a small impact.
My $0.02
Andy
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>Not according to the largest risk-consultation company in America.
>See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
That chart is found on an anti-helmet website. How about a neutral
site, not about bicycling at all? Yes, you'll say that it was done
by an independent company, but an independent company can be biased
or wrong easily enough; and an anti-helmet site would post only data
by such a company. It's even easy enough for such a company to
gather broken data by accident, not knowing about bicycling.
Even by that chart, hunting is safer; and the much-cited sleeping,
showering, etc, falls under "Home Living, active & passive
(sleeping)", which is much safer, though anti-helmet people put
those items forth as being more dangerous because more accidents
happen per year.
And, even comparing cycling to passenger cars using the data from
that chart, since you believe it is so incredibly dangerous to
drive, then, it is more than half as dangerous to bicycle; still
reason to wear safety equipment, if you believe it should be worn in
cars.
What does this category mean:
>Living (all causes of death)
Apparently, living an hour at all is many times more dangerous than
bicycling AND passenger cars.
Also, that chart only shows fatalities, not injuries; injuries do
matter.
>My point? Any single set of experiences is too limited to be useful
Just as a generalized statistic, covering all riders of all ages who
ride at all styles in all environments, is not applicable to an
individual riding with his own style in his own environment.
>- Frank Krygowski
--
Rick Onanian
Zippy the Pinhead
<thalesN...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>But the worst thing in my memory was a near-miss from about a month ago that
>wasn't my fault: some guy ran a red light going about 40MPH.
Somehow, drivers have come to believe that the yellow light means
"Floor it, it's about to turn red" and the red light means "You have
about ten seconds to get through the intersection". When I was
stationed in Texas, the first thing I was told was to count on that
when driving, and wait a few seconds after the light turned green
before heading into the "no-man's land" that is an intersection when
the lights change. If you watch some lights now, there's a brief
period when the light is red in ALL direcitons to compensate for this,
as though engineering could compensate for stupidity.
A neighboring state had an informal quiz on traffic laws. One of the
questions concerned merging into a freeway. Half the respondents said
it was the responsibility of those merging to blend smoothly into
traffic. The other half said it was the responsibility of those on
the freeway to get over and "make room" for those merging. It's my
observation in my travels that those people frequently meet at
on-ramps. My favorite thing is a solid bumper-to-bumper stream of
cars moving along an on-ramp as though they've become a train and
everyone will get out of their way.
It's become a much more dangerous world, with more and more drivers
driving as though they'd been pithed.
Stella Hackell
> How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
>
> I am trying to answer an fairly active recreational cyclist who has made
> this claim in the Swedish cycling newsgroup.
>
> I don't think he is correct and I would like some facts and data that
> back up my thoughts about this.
Tom Kunich used to post statistics from a company called, I think, Failure
Analysis. It was a comparison of death rates for common activities (and some
uncommon ones), including riding a bike,driving/riding in a car, swimming,
sleeping, skydiving, exposure to cosmic rays, etc. The statistics were
compiled for the use of the insurance industry.
Unfortunately, i don't have the information handy, but you might contact Tom,
or someone else might have it.
The stats showed that the risk of death per hour of cycling was slightly
less than the risk of death per hour of driving or riding in a car.
In other words, it's about as dangerous as something that most of us
(well, many of us, depending where you live) do every day without even
thinking about danger.
Skydiving was one of the most dangerous in risk of death per hour.
When someone tells me cycling is dangerous, I reply that it is about as
dangerous as riding in a car, something that many of us do every day.
The person is usually surprised to hear this. It may not change anyone's
mind, but it makes them think a bit.
> The cyclist who posted this says he
> always wears his helmet, even when cycling to the local store for some
> bananas.
That does him no harm, though it probably does no good either.
> He is an active sky diver, but does not wear his helmet then
> because he has time to protect his head with his hands if necessary when
> landing.
Oh, THAT is ridiculous. He's just kidding himself. If he's falling out
of the sky and about to land on his head, interposing a HAND is going to
protect his head? (I can't imagine a helmet would help much in that
kind of accident, either.) He just doesn't want to admit that skydiving is
in fact more dangerous than most other activities, because then he'd
no longer feel OK about doing it.
Stella
Ian
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3F8D6FD0...@cs.umass.edu...
Per hour of use weighs unfavourably against the car. That one hour for a
motorist can mean multiple trips, many miles, many lights, stop signs, many
other drivers, I do not agree that it normalizes to the extent that it
produces a fair comparison.
I tend to believe comparing cars to bikes to be like comparing apples to
oranges, they are 2 totally different beasts with more different about them
than they have in common. Why not compare biking to walking?
David Kerber
ste...@lmi.net says...
Of course if your chute doesn't open, having a helmet on will make not
any difference to your survival.
However, having a couple of friends who are skydivers, they tell me
that most non-fatal injuries come when they misjudge their distance
from the ground and don't flare at the correct time, causing them to
either hit too fast (if they flare too late) or fall backwards (if
they flare too soon). The other common problem is with excessive
winds at ground level, making it difficult to control their approach
speed. In any of those more-likely cases, a helmet would probably
help about as much as it would on a bike because you're falling down
or being dragged over the ground at some semi-reasonable speed.
David Kerber
<%9ijb.342918$Lnr1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
lim...@NoSpamrogers.com says...
>
> "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> news:3F8D6FD0...@cs.umass.edu...
> > Ian wrote:
> >
> > > If you were statistically to compare the danger of driving versus
> bicycle
> > > riding on a "per mile", "per trip", or "usage" basis, you would find
> > > bicycling to be more dangerous than driving a car.
> >
> > You need to compare on a per hour of use basis, since per mile or per trip
> > (which still has a per mile of comparison component to it) doesn't
> normalize
> > for differences in exposure to danger.
> >
> > Say I ride 15 miles in one hour. The car covers that distance in perhaps
> > 10-30 minutes. So while I'm pedaling home from my ride, still exposed to
> > being run down by someone, the car user is sitting on the sofa watching
> > TV, with his danger of being in a car accident being nil.
> >
> > Pretty much the same for that one trip: by car, 15 minutes; by bike, 60.
> >
> > Not a fair comparison.
> >
> >
> > SMH
>
> Per hour of use weighs unfavourably against the car. That one hour for a
> motorist can mean multiple trips, many miles, many lights, stop signs, many
> other drivers, I do not agree that it normalizes to the extent that it
> produces a fair comparison.
An hour on the bike for me also probably means many trips and lights,
though fewer miles. I wonder what the result would be if you compared
injuries per trip, with each time you left your driveway and returned
counting as one trip.
> I tend to believe comparing cars to bikes to be like comparing apples to
> oranges, they are 2 totally different beasts with more different about them
> than they have in common. Why not compare biking to walking?
It would probably give roughly the same relative results as comparing
bikes to cars, since the relative speeds are roughly comparable.
Ray Heindl
> On 15 Oct 2003 11:09:52 -0700, frkr...@yahoo.com (Frank Krygowski)
> wrote:
>>Not according to the largest risk-consultation company in America.
>>See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>
> That chart is found on an anti-helmet website. How about a neutral
> site, not about bicycling at all? Yes, you'll say that it was done
> by an independent company, but an independent company can be biased
> or wrong easily enough; and an anti-helmet site would post only data
> by such a company. It's even easy enough for such a company to
> gather broken data by accident, not knowing about bicycling.
That same chart appears 53 times on the web (according to Google),
mostly in bicycle contexts. But it originally appeared in _Design News_
magazine, which isn't cycling-oriented. I've never been able to find
any info on where they got their data or how they analyzed it, so I'll
take it with a grain of salt. Has anyone here seen the original
article from which the table is taken? It might have some useful info.
[snip]
> What does this category mean:
>>Living (all causes of death)
> Apparently, living an hour at all is many times more dangerous than
> bicycling AND passenger cars.
It means that people live 653,000 hours, or 74.6 years, on average.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)
Doug Purdy
> I tend to believe comparing cars to bikes to be like comparing apples to
> oranges, they are 2 totally different beasts with more different about
them
> than they have in common. Why not compare biking to walking?
You made an excellent point. I ride my bike to work for exercise. That means
it replaces the car ride and alternative exercise at the same time (I hate
gyms). For a real comparison we have to add the two risks to compare them to
cycling.
On the other hand, if we're trying to compare bike vs car and no exercise,
then we'd have to add the car risk to the sedentary lifestyle risk. That
would probably make cycling look better still.
Even for myself, cycling is the only exercise I've managed to do
consistently. It's possible, that if I couldn't commute by bike, I still
wouldn't be exercising.
Doug
Toronto
Benjamin Lewis
> All I do in response to this is shake my head in a combination of disgust
> and amazement.
That's too bad. There are much more useful things one can do with a head.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Benjamin Lewis
> Hey frank ... try reading the entire thread. I know plenty about cycling
> and its relative dangers. I've experienced them first hand.
Well, I guess you're an expert then. I also presume you'll start wearing a
helmet as a pedestrian when I tell you anecdotes of my friends who have
been hit by cars while out walking.
> I can't stand enduring all the idiots out here who think they know
> something about it when they spin a few miles a week and haven't had a
> life-threatening accident ... yet somehow they're experts.
To whom are you referring here? Certainly not Frank.
Hunrobe
wrote:
>Your heart is in the right place, but you're using specious arguments.
>
>"Many more people" reach into kitchen cupboards, climb stairs and mop
>bathrooms than ride bicycles.
>
>You'd need to compare injuries per, for example, hours of exposure to
>hazard in order to draw defensible conclusions about the relative
>safety of activities. I'm not pretending to know what these numbers
>are, mind you, nor am I disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm just
>pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.
No, you miss my point. The OP was asking about a claim that, without any
specific frame of reference, cycling is "dangerous". My examples of everyday
activities that can result in injury or death was similiarly without any frame
of reference. Substitute "tens of thousands" for "many more" and I'm sure
you'll see what I mean. I was just too lazy to look up the stats when I posted
my reply and worded it poorly. My bad.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Stephen Harding
> Several years ago, bumping up onto a curb, I mistimed the frontwheel lift,
> and went over the front.
> Result - chipped tooth on landing.
>
> As I had the helmet on (military requirement) I suppose I counted am in the
> other camp. Non serious head injury while wearing a helmet.
> Of COURSE the helmet saved my life! ;)
Perhaps if you had the correct helmet brand, or wore it "more effectively",
you could have avoided the chipped tooth too!
But just having survived should be good enough.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Per hour of use weighs unfavourably against the car. That one hour for a
> motorist can mean multiple trips, many miles, many lights, stop signs, many
> other drivers, I do not agree that it normalizes to the extent that it
> produces a fair comparison.
If you're not exposed to danger (your car is in the garage), how can you be
sustain a traffic injury? Only if a car rams into your house while you watch
the tube.
> I tend to believe comparing cars to bikes to be like comparing apples to
> oranges, they are 2 totally different beasts with more different about them
> than they have in common. Why not compare biking to walking?
Comparing cars and bikes is indeed difficult.
Not certain how many "walking accidents" there are beyond twisted ankles and
such. Don't think I've heard of any fatalities from walking collisions, yet
surely, some where at some time, it has happened!
SMH
Matthew
"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:3f8c...@news.ysu.edu...
> Robert Chambers wrote:
>
> Should car riders be mindful of the potential dangers? Certainly. Is
> car riding "dangerous"? Not so much that people should wear protective
> gear, apparently!
>
In my car I have seat belts and multiple air bags. These safety devices do
not encourage me to drive dangerously.
And now here is my question, has wearing a helmet on a bicycle ever killed
or seriously injured someone? In other words, except for the helmet, they
would still be alive today.
Matthew
Hunrobe
wrote in part:
>In fact, from higher "altitudes", predicting when you'll hit the ground is
>really, really tricky!! I suppose it gets better with experience (my
>experience
>is a single jump only), but this problem was far trickier than I would have
>thought.
Skydiving is the only activity I have personally experienced that defies the
laws of physics. It's amazing how you actually *accelerate* as you get closer
and closer to touchdown even though the forces determining that speed- gravity
and air resistance- have changed. Must be magic. <g>
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Pete
"Matthew" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> In my car I have seat belts and multiple air bags. These safety devices do
> not encourage me to drive dangerously.
Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones...and still there are numerous head
injuries.
>
> And now here is my question, has wearing a helmet on a bicycle ever killed
> or seriously injured someone? In other words, except for the helmet, they
> would still be alive today.
Not strictly *while riding a bike*, but:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml99/99065.html
There were also a few cases in Sweden.
Pete
Bernie
Claire Petersky wrote:
>So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of
>cycling while being stuck in some malodorous steel box in an
>interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation?
>
>Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free!
>
>--
>Warm Regards,
>
>Claire Petersky
>
Right on Claire!
You don't forget the cosmic joke!
Best regards, Bernie
Robert Chambers
mouse I'm used to. I keep double-tapping when a single will do. I think
that's what's causing the double-posts.
Bob C.
"Sorni" <so...@bite-me.san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6Zejb.15314$ZH4....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> top-posted in message
> news:bmjcjg$bvvu$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>
> > Hey frank ... try reading the entire thread. I know plenty about
cycling
> > and its relative dangers. I've experienced them first hand. I can't
> stand
> > enduring all the idiots out here who think they know something about it
> when
> > they spin a few miles a week and haven't had a life-threatening accident
> ...
> > yet somehow they're experts.
>
> Hey robert...
>
> I agree with your helmet position, but why are all your notes preceded
with
> a "blank" post (no new content)?
>
> Bill "not even mentioning the top-posting" S.
>
>
Frank Krygowski
> I'm absolutely certain I
> wouldn't be alive today ... or at least I wouldn't be able to type these
> sentences ... were it not for the protection my helmet provided when I was
> run down. That's my view, that's the testimony of the witnesses at the
> intersection who saw the impact, saw me go airborn, saw me land on my head.
> That's the testimony of my EMS workers, my ER doctors and my orthopedic
> surgeon who had to piece all the rest of me back together, but didn't have
> to piece my skull back together.
>
> Unless you've been there, you speak from ignorance.
I've described the following incident before, but you apparently haven't
read about it. Here it is again.
I saw a young guy get broadsided by a car in a major city. We'd just
walked out of a restaurant and were walking on the sidewalk when the car
hit this college-aged kid. We saw it from behind the car.
First there was a truly sickening crashing sound. Immediately, the
kid's body was visible in the air, head down, higher than the roof of
the car. We later learned the kid's head had hit the windshield and
windshield wiper, smashing both; then he landed on his head on the
pavement some distance in front of the car.
I didn't even run up to see the gory results - I _knew_ I'd just
witnessed a traffic fatality. I ran back into the restaurant and called
911. Then I ran back out to see the carnage.
The young kid was sitting on a low wall at the sidewalk. Various people
were holding his neck steady. The car driver was nearly hysterical.
Her car was badly dented, her windshield destroyed. Cops came and took
our names as witnesses; an ambulance came, and the kid was rushed to ER
on a backboard.
But he was perfectly fine, except for a scratch above the ear. He'd
picked himself up off the street and walked over to the sidewalk on his
own. He was back in college classes the next day with no harm done.
But his helmet did NOT save him. He didn't have one on. And oddly,
nobody scolded him for it. Not the cops, not the ambulance guys, not
the ER staff!
Why? Because he was a pedestrian. Despite the fact that ped fatalities
(due to head injury, or any other cause) greatly outnumber bike
fatalities, nobody thought the kid should have worn a helmet.
Of course, if he _had_ worn a helmet, _everybody_ would have _known_ it
saved his life!
But they'd have been wrong.
Whenever someone tells me they _know_ their helmet saved their life, I
think about that kid.
--
Frank Krygowski
Zippy the Pinhead
<Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:20:31 GMT, Zippy the Pinhead <u...@NOSPAM.ftc.gov> from
>Xavier Onassis Associates wrote:
>
>>An hour in a car is a day on the bike, if miles traveled is the
>>criterion.
>
>You drive 120 miles per hour? w00t!
Well, how many cyclists will do 120 miles during a day on the bike?
How many miles will an AVERAGE cyclist put on in a day?
The cars on I-94 whip on past me when I'm doing 75 in the SLOW lane.
Robert Chambers
saved my life twice. All your little statistics are cute. How many people
wear trousers, eat vegetables, sit in armchairs, etc. etc. compared to the
number that ride bicycles?
Bob C.
"Claire Petersky" <cpet...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:GOcjb.775490$YN5.759183@sccrnsc01...
> "Garry Jones" <mor...@algonet.se> wrote in message
> news:3F8C2690...@algonet.se...
> > How do you meet that remark in a constructive manner?
>
> Here's a quote from another post I made on this topic.
>
> So, apparently the compelling question is, how dangerous is cycling
> compared to other activities of daily life? A 1999 study in Britain of
> emergency room incidents came up with these statistics: While 172
> cyclists were killed in 1999, 5,945 people were hospitalised after
> trouser-related accidents and 13,132 from injuries inflicted by
> vegetables and 96,000 from accidents occurring while they were
> sleeping, relaxing, sitting or lying around.
>
> Here's more:
>
> "The trend was balanced only by the drop in injuries inflicted by
> armchairs, down from 18,690 to 16,662. Nevertheless, armchair injuries
> 'leave little room for complacency', New Scientist says today, adding
> that injuries inflicted by vegetables 'remain unacceptably high' at
> 13,132. Hospital admissions caused by socks and tights rose from 9,843
> to 10,773, while birdbath accidents almost trebled to 311."
>
> You should also note that tea cozy injuries nearly doubled, from 20 to
> an alarming 37. 146 were hurt using bread bins and 329 from toilet
> roll holder related injuries.
>
> So, what are you going to do? Vaguely worry about the dangers of
> cycling while being stuck in some malodorous steel box in an
> interminable line of cars, fuming at your sorry situation?
>
> Or be on your bike, out on God's Green Earth and be free!
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
>
> Home of the meditative cyclist:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
>
> Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
>
>
Frank Krygowski
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3f8c...@news.ysu.edu...
>
>>Robert Chambers wrote:
>>
>>Should car riders be mindful of the potential dangers? Certainly. Is
>>car riding "dangerous"? Not so much that people should wear protective
>>gear, apparently!
>>
>
> In my car I have seat belts and multiple air bags. These safety devices do
> not encourage me to drive dangerously.
Perhaps. But they may have that effect on certain drivers. Anti-lock
brakes have been pretty thoroughly indicted on that issue. See
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html for a well-designed
study on the subject, involving taxi drivers.
> And now here is my question, has wearing a helmet on a bicycle ever killed
> or seriously injured someone? In other words, except for the helmet, they
> would still be alive today.
Honestly, we don't know.
One of the items recently learned about brain injury is that rotational
accelerations of the brain appear to cause worse injury than linear
accelerations. See
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mainframes.html#1031.html and follow the
link to "rotational forces." (Then visit your library to get the article.)
Helmets are designed to reduce linear accelerations. But there is a
very plausible mechanism by which helmets may worsen rotational
accelerations. The helmet is larger in diameter than the head; thus, a
glancing blow that would miss the bare head may contact the helmet.
The head, with relatively loose scalp tissue, seems designed to slip
(albeit painfully) over the surface giving a glancing blow. It has a
low effective coefficient of friction. Helmets, with micro-thin shells,
are likely to grab the road surface (for instance) more strongly.
And the larger diameter helmet provides a larger moment arm for the
friction force, causing greater torque on the head - and consequently,
more rotational acceleration of the brain.
Thus, helmets may make one type of impact worse, even though they make
another type better. How important is this? We don't know. Autopsies
don't go into that much detail. But we do know that cycling fatalities
don't seem to be greatly (if at all) affected by helmet use. That is,
there are plenty of dead cyclists in helmets. Perhaps this is why.
Would some be alive without the helmet? Could be. We don't know, and
practically speaking, it's probably not testable.
--
Frank Krygowski
Robert Chambers
to take a measure of caution and wear a helmet. How evil of me.
What exactly is your problem with wearing a helmet? Is it vanity? Do you
preceive yourself to be invincible?
Let me ask you this ... I was not racing when I was hit by the car a year
ago. I wasn't doing anything but passing through an intersection on a green
light. A passing van obscured the view an oncoming driver had and she made
a turn she shouldn't have and hit me. Witnesses say I went off her
windshield, went high in the air and landed squarely on my head. My helmet
has a very deep gouge in it that I think it's quite safe to assume would
have corresponded to a pretty nasty injury to my head.
Were it you in that situation, would you rather NOT have been wearing a
helmet?
You think it can't happen to you and you spout all this crap about, "do you
wear a helmet when you ride in a car?" That's such nonsense. In a car
you're surrounded by steel, you have seat belts, you have airbags -- or do
you disconnect all those things? In a car you have a moving mass that's far
more comparable to the other cars on the road.
You're really masterful at making arguments and articulate insults. But I
pray that you won't ever have to find yourself in the situation I endured a
year ago and have to go through it without a helmet. Of course, the good
thing is you won't have to worry about being conscious to endure the pain I
suffered from my injuries.
Bob C.
"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:3f8c...@news.ysu.edu...
> Robert Chambers wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, anyone who says cycling isn't potentially dangerous is in
> > serious denial. 4,000 pound hunks of metal are hurtling down the road
next
> > to you in the control of inattentive idiots. If you aren't mindful of
the
> > potential dangers, you're asking for trouble.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> You decide to engage in risky behavior, like fast riding in a close
> paceline crossing RR tracks, and you say _cycling_ is dangerous? Sorry,
> _your_ cycling was dangerous at that point; but you certainly
> shouldn't extrapolate to others with more sense. Your "Speed Racer"
> fantasies have no relevance for most of the world's cyclists.
>
> Likewise, it's unfortunate that you were hit by a car - but it was
> similarly unfortunate that I've had at least four friends killed due to
> riding in cars. And it's just as unfortunate for the 35,000 or so
> Americans who die in cars each year.
>
> Should car riders be mindful of the potential dangers? Certainly. Is
> car riding "dangerous"? Not so much that people should wear protective
> gear, apparently!
>
> > Also, I think anyone who does
> > anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
> > locked up.
>
> Hmmm. If you think at all, you don't do it enough to develop a
> tolerance of others' views, do you?
>
> But you've got me curious. When you say "discourage another rider" what
> exactly do you mean? For example: say someone asks me "Do I really need
> to wear a helmet when I ride my bike 100 yards to the restroom in this
> deserted campground?" If I say "No" should I really be jailed? Or are
> you just expressing yourself incompetently?
>
> > Finally, there's a guy here in the states who had a well-known website
> > dedicated to promoting the relative safety of cycling. If you search,
> > you'll probably not have any real trouble finding it. I believe Sheldon
> > Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the site
was
> > run over and killed a few weeks back.
>
> First, as I've said, I can quickly think of four friends who died while
> riding in motor vehicles. This is sad and regrettable, but it is not in
> itself proof that motoring is unacceptably dangerous.
>
> Second, I considered Ken Kifer to be a good friend. Your use of his
> death in this manner is despicable as well as stupid.
>
> --
> Frank Krygowski
>
Frank Krygowski
> On 15 Oct 2003 11:09:52 -0700, frkr...@yahoo.com (Frank Krygowski)
> wrote:
>
>>Not according to the largest risk-consultation company in America.
>>See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>
>
> That chart is found on an anti-helmet website. How about a neutral
> site, not about bicycling at all?
Good grief! It's hard to believe you're real!
The article is from Design News, which is a publication for professional
engineers. The article had nothing to do with bicycles, any more than
it had to do with swimming, or aircraft, or any of the other items in
the list. The article was actually about fires inside cars.
I'd say that's about as neutral as one can get! The data on cycling
(and swimming, and skydiving) was given just to put the risk numbers
into context, to allow rational comparison. But obviously, this isn't
effective for everybody!)
IIRC, the company, Failure Analysis Associates (which has since changed
it's name, I understand) didn't reveal their methods; but understand:
this sort of risk analysis is the reason this company exists! They are
the largest risk consultation firm in the country, serving the insurance
industry (for example). Last I heard, they had over 100 PhDs on staff -
experts in risk assessment.
You may not like the numbers, because they seem to contradict one of
your dearly-held beliefs: that cycling really _is_ very dangerous!
However, the problem's not likely to be with the numbers. It's with
your beliefs.
--
Frank Krygowski
Pete
"Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> wrote in message
news:bml3jo$cpc3$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> I'm gonna be out on my bike on God's green Earth with a helmet on.
And that is your prerogative.
The issue most of the people who are classified as "anti-helmet" (a serious
misnomer) is the concept that no one should go near a wheeled vehicle (bike,
scooter, blades) without a helmet, no matter what the road conditions, skill
level, ride distance, traffic density.
Riding at high speed in a close paceline? Sure. Mountain biking, where you
have a distinct possibility of low hanging branches? Sure.
But that is definitely not the same as toodling 1/2 mile to the store on a
completely empty street.
Cincinnati is on the cusp of passing a child helmet law.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/10/15/loc_helmet15.html
The town of Blue Ash passed one last week
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/10/10/loc_blueash10.html
"After the meeting, Ringel said helmet use would prevent 75 percent of
bicycle fatalities and 86 percent of head injuries among children. "
The mythical prevention stats live on.
If that number is actually true, why have we not seen a large reduction in
cycling deaths or head injuries over the last 20-30 years? Helmet use has
gone from basically zero in the 70's to (name your percentage). Yet annual
bike fatalities have remained curiously stable. Why is that?
No one is arguing that a helmet will not offer some protection in certain
circumstances. But those conditions fall in a relatively narrow band. Look
at the testing standards and how they are built.
No one is arguing that you should not be able to wear a helmet if you want.
Yet some people would argue that no one should be able to ride a bike, under
any circumstances, without one.
And there are other, far more effective ways to prevent a cycling injury
that seem to fall by the wayside in the face of "Wear that helmet!".
Pete
Robert Chambers
>But we do know that cycling fatalities
> don't seem to be greatly (if at all) affected by helmet use. That is,
> there are plenty of dead cyclists in helmets. Perhaps this is why.
Dead of what? Dead of head injuries? I sure doubt it.
The injuries to the rest of my body were feared to be life-threatening.
They didn't turn out to be. The head injury I would have sustained without
the helmet might very well have been the worst of all. That's just
speculation, of course. But clearly, you're speculating and extrapolating
all over the place with whatever data you have. You're quick to dismiss
someone's experience as an isolated data point. That's always the problem
with statistics. You don't have any idea how many riders have fallen and
hit their heads with their helmets on who sustained NO injuries and rode
home. They never made it into any database. You can't have any really
relevant statistics on this.
And weren't you supposed to be arguing that cycling wasn't dangerous?
Interesting how you say you have, "plenty of dead cyclists."
Bob C.
Shayne Wissler
differentiating between being against helmets and being against helmet laws,
which are two entirely different things. This discussion turns and turns
without clearly separating this issues. It's probably a side-effect of our
government-run education system, which inculcates the idea that what is
legal is moral and visa versa.
Really there are only two basic positions:
1. The reasonable position of advocating helmet use in dangerous
circumstances, using individual judgment and without a legal mandate;
2. The unreasonable positions of either
a) Being opposed to helmets in all situations
b) Being in favor of helmet laws
Most if not all people in the second category, regardless of whether they
are in set 'a' or 'b', share the same rotten premise. Namely, that it's OK
for the government to force us to do the "right" thing. They just disagree
over what the right thing is.
Shayne Wissler
"Pete" <p...@usaf.com> wrote in message
news:qPojb.33037$cK5....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
Steve Knight
>You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped form weighing
>under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in the
>real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the forces
>on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the others that
>it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
Ok lets do a test. I bet we will all pitch in for a helmet. go out and buy a
bicycle helmet. fit it properly. out it on the right way. now go run head first
at a good tilt into a brick wall.
now take it off and do the same thing without it. tell us the results when and
if your able.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Steve Knight
>It would best to teach people how to ride safely instead of telling them to wear
>a helmet then turning them loose to ride any which ol' way.
of course no one will argue with this. but how would we go about it? encourage
places that sell bikes to give free lessons?
Pete
"Steve Knight" <ste...@knight-toolworks.com> wrote in message
news:2b8sovs3ar23ifpci...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:17:49 -0500, Kevan Smith <Ke...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote:
>
> >You got lucky. A helmet is only designed to protect a head-shaped form
weighing
> >under 14 pounds froma a fall of about six feet. The forces of crashes in
the
> >real world are usually much greater. However, since no one measured the
forces
> >on your head or that absorbed by your helmet, your statement and the
others that
> >it "saved your life" is pure speculation.
>
> Ok lets do a test. I bet we will all pitch in for a helmet. go out and buy
a
> bicycle helmet. fit it properly. out it on the right way. now go run head
first
> at a good tilt into a brick wall.
> now take it off and do the same thing without it. tell us the results
when and
> if your able.
Do you run into brick walls often? Maybe you should learn not to do that.
Pete
Benjamin Lewis
> And weren't you supposed to be arguing that cycling wasn't dangerous?
> Interesting how you say you have, "plenty of dead cyclists."
The two statements are *not* mutually exclusive. That's one of the main
fallacies that many of the staunch helmet advocates fall into.
--
Benjamin Lewis
Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly
Benjamin Lewis
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:19:21 -0500, Kevan Smith
> <Ke...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:20:31 GMT, Zippy the Pinhead <u...@NOSPAM.ftc.gov>
>> from Xavier Onassis Associates wrote:
>>
>>> An hour in a car is a day on the bike, if miles traveled is the
>>> criterion.
>>
>> You drive 120 miles per hour? w00t!
>
> Well, how many cyclists will do 120 miles during a day on the bike?
Of the cyclists who ride all day, probably most. I've done over 235 miles
in a 24 hour period, which is peanuts compared to many other randonneurs.
Pete
"Shayne Wissler" <thalesN...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Really there are only two basic positions:
> 1. The reasonable position of advocating helmet use in dangerous
> circumstances, using individual judgment and without a legal mandate;
> 2. The unreasonable positions of either
> a) Being opposed to helmets in all situations
> b) Being in favor of helmet laws
>
> Most if not all people in the second category, regardless of whether they
> are in set 'a' or 'b', share the same rotten premise. Namely, that it's OK
> for the government to force us to do the "right" thing. They just disagree
> over what the right thing is.
Add set 1-b:
Advocating additional, more effective means of preventing injury.
- Instruction (cyclists AND drivers)
- Proper facilities. i.e. no more dangerously designed bike lanes
I think you'll find very, very few people in set 2-a. There are a lot in set
2-b.
Pete
Tom Keats
Steve Knight <ste...@knight-toolworks.com> writes:
> Ok lets do a test. I bet we will all pitch in for a helmet. go out and buy a
> bicycle helmet. fit it properly. out it on the right way. now go run head first
> at a good tilt into a brick wall.
Now, that's just plain ill-considered. Especially if you think
the hat is going to protect the wearer. Extra-especially
considering the "collision within the collision" effect --
helmet hits wall, brain hits skull. Somehow I'm reminded of the
old TV adverts for the In-The-Eggshell-Egg-Scrambler.
IOW, foam hats are not an impunitous defence against stationary
brick walls. Less so with oncoming brick walls (or cars.)
Umbrella-parachutes are just as effective.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Benjamin Lewis
> Yep ... I'm a real despicable character out here trying to encourage
> people to take a measure of caution and wear a helmet. How evil of me.
>
> What exactly is your problem with wearing a helmet? Is it vanity? Do
> you preceive yourself to be invincible?
I do not perceive myself to be invincible. And yet, I do not wear a helmet
when I cross busy intersections as a pedestrian, even though the level of
risk is arguably similar to the risks associated with cycling. Clearly,
many pedestrians are involved in fatal car accidents, and one can argue all
he wants that a helmet might have saved them, but that won't persuade me to
wear one when I'm walking down the street. Why not? Because I've judged
walking to be statistically safe, just as cycling is, despite its risks.
There are risks involved with *any* activity. I have yet to be convinced
that the risks involved with cycling are high enough to warrant a helmet;
most of the evidence I've seen points the other way. If you can't see why
anecdotal evidence is not good enough, please explain to me why you don't
wear a helmet as a pedestrian.
R15757
<< I've never been able to find
any info on where they got their data or how they analyzed it, so I'll
take it with a grain of salt. Has anyone here seen the original
article from which the table is taken? It might have some useful info. >>
I've seen the original article. There is no mention of methodology for the
chart. The article, and the chart, was specifically about car fires.
Interesting how it got picked up in the helmet debate. I wish someone from
Failure Analysis Associates would spill the beans. My hunch is that the
methodology is so flawed that if it were to be revealed nobody would use the
chart again.
cheers,
Robert
Nick
seems to offer a greater level of protection than a normal cycling helmet. I
would venture to say that if you neglect to wear it you are recklessly risking
your life! Potentially wasting tax dollars taking care of you if your injured!
Think about your children, how will they feel knowing you are riding around on
the road wearing little protection, except for 10 ounces of styrofoam? If you
say one word that discourages others to wear this helmet you should be locked
up....... Think I need a sit down now.
A serious question now, what do you think about the theory of risk
compensation? And for real, why don't you wear a motorcycle helmet? It does
offer a greater level of protection. We should make THEM mandatory, it has
worked for motorcyclists, if it saves one life, surely it must be worth it?
Regards, Nick.
Robert Chambers wrote:
> "Doug Purdy" <resi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:bc%ib.108611$ko%.66680@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "Robert Chambers" <tech...@wctel.net> wrote in message
> > news:bmhbll$avgj$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> > > potential dangers, you're asking for trouble. Also, I think anyone who
> > does
> > > anything to discourage another rider from wearing a helmet ought to be
> > > locked up.
> >
> > It's this kind of hyperbole (and mandatory helmet laws in other
> > jurisdictions) that make me wear my helmet less than I would otherwise.
> > Around here you can rarely mention the word "bike" without someone getting
> > fanatical that anyone on a bike must wear a helmet.
> >
> > They never say anything about lights or blowing stoplights and other
> > illegal, dangerous, manoeuvers. They are astounded when I say I wear my
> > helmet offroad where it's dangerous. If I raced I would wear a helmet then
> > too.
> >
> > Why do the majority of riders ignoring stoplights wear helmets? Even
> riders
> > crossing busy 4 lane major arterials against the lights, they must be
> safe,
> > they're wearing helmets.
> >
> > > Brown is keeping it up now. The guy who built and maintained the site
> was
> > > run over and killed a few weeks back.
> >
> > IIRC the car crossed the street to hit him head on. This is more an
> argument
> > to stay away from all roads no matter what vehicle you use.
> >
> > IMHO helmets are the last thing that needs to be made mandatory. Kids need
> > them when they are learning to ride on the sidewalk (a very dangerous
> place
> > to ride). People should wear them offroad and racing (other dangerous
> > places). A mandatory helmet law would address none of those high risk
> > occasions. It would continue to encourage this ubiquitous focus on helmets
> > to the exclusion of riskier behaviour.
> >
> > Doug
> > Toronto
>
> Geez, talk about hyperbole!
>
> I don't blow stop signs or stop lights. In low light situations, I ALWAYS
> use lights -- both front and rear. I wear the loudest, most visible colors
> I can find. I never said one word about making helmet use mandatory. I DID
> say that I thought anyone who would discourage others from wearing helmets
> when they ride should be locked up. Make a choice for yourself. Don't try
> to inflict your ignorance on others. If you ride and you haven't had the
> experience of hitting your head, it doesn't mean it can't happen or won't
> happen. I'm the voice of experience saying it CAN happen and it DOES
> happen. Why would you discourage anyone from 10 ounces of prevention?
> There's no logical reason. There simply isn't.
>
> Bob C.
Nick
Matthew wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkrygowS...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3f8c...@news.ysu.edu...
> > Robert Chambers wrote:
> >
> > Should car riders be mindful of the potential dangers? Certainly. Is
> > car riding "dangerous"? Not so much that people should wear protective
> > gear, apparently!
> >
> In my car I have seat belts and multiple air bags. These safety devices do
> not encourage me to drive dangerously.
>
The theory of risk compensation would suggest otherwise
Regards, Nick.