McBTC

What is the logic here?

Are Americans who do not wear helmets 9 to 3 times less likely to be killed riding a bike? If it is not likely you will be killed riding a bike (i.e., to be expected, probable), what is, 9 to 13 times as likely to be killed riding a bicycle equate to? If it is likely you will be killed riding a bike, what is, 9 to 13 times as likely to be killed riding a bicycle equate to?

Do you mean there are 9 to 13 times more bicycle fatalities in the US than in Denmark or the Netherlands, each of which is about 16K sq. miles?

The US bicyclist death rate for 2012 was ~2.3 /1 million. Shouldn't we compare the "rate" because Denmark and Netherlands are not very big--i.e., they're less than a 6th the size of Oregon.

New Hampshire and Vermont together are more square miles than either Denmark or the Netherlands. The average annual number of bike deaths in NH and VT together from 2010 to 2012 was 1/year.

In Denmark, 54 cyclists were killed in traffic in 2008. With a population of ~5.6 million, that equates to nearly 10 deaths /million... about what you see in Oregon which is much larger and thousands of people come from around the world to ride bikes there for hundreds of miles.

Jaywalk3r

Generally such comparisons adjust for bicyclist populations in an appropriate manner, addressing concerns such as yours.

genec

Just how likely is said girl to ride 12 miles either way, during rush hour, on mixed multi-lane arterial roads with traffic speeds of 45MPH and 55MPH? Ain't stats fun...

McBTC

That sounds really good until you learn that, "most published research findings are false." [See, Ioannidis JPA (2005) PLoS Med 2(8): e124]

Jaywalk3r

If you're restricting your "research" to PLoS, then perhaps. But in general, not true at all.

McBTC

Jaywalk3r

You're making the exact same mistake you were worried others made. We expect exactly that pattern to show up in the data, because they have the highest percentage of bicyclists on the streets. They're still among the, if not the, safest countries in which to ride a bicycle.

A much more useful figure for safety comparisons between bikes and automobiles in various countries would be proportion of bicycle fatalities divided by proportion of miles traveled by bicycle.

A comparison of cycling safety between countries would be better to use the number of bicyclist fatalities per million miles traveled by bicycle.

In both comparisons, I suspect Netherlands and Denmark, and certainly Amsterdam and Copenhagen, would prove to be very safe for bicyclists.

McBTC

Except for all of the other EU countries?


“EU countries with the highest percentage of cyclist fatalities in 2008 were The Netherlands (with around 21%) and Denmark (with around 13%). In contrast, in Greece and Spain cyclists constitute only a small part (<2%) of road accident fatalities. Luxembourg is excluded because of its low number of cyclist fatalities.” (Ibid.)

Of total US traffic fatalities, the average bicyclist death rate in the US was 2.3% in 2013. The highest rate cyclist fatalities involve older riders (55 to 59). Most bicycle fatalities involve males and apparently ~Ľ of them had been drinking alcohol (BAC of .01 or greater). So, age, gender and alcohol involvement are major factors in cyclist fatalities.

Jaywalk3r

That doesn't address the problem with your numbers. See the edits in my previous post.

McBTC

By your logic China may be the safest place in the world to ride, despite the phenomenal death rate among cyclists there.

Jaywalk3r

Not at all. By my logic, statistics should be used appropriately, and not taken out of context in a futile attempt to lend support to an erroneous argument, which is what you're trying to do.

McBTC

You said above that, "I suspect Netherlands and Denmark, and certainly Amsterdam and Copenhagen, would prove to be very safe for bicyclists..." I suspect not.

winston63 

I'm not sure about each province (and I'm too lazy to look that up) but here in BC helmet use is mandatory for adults and has been for quite a while.

Jaywalk3r

Your source shows that the percentage of traffic fatalities that are bicyclists hovers around 20%, slightly higher some years, slightly lower others. On the other hand, a quick serach reveals that in the Netherlands, bicycling "has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." Since .20 < .27, this strongly suggests that bicyclists have fatalities at a rate lower than average among all road users in the Netherlands. Do you really believe that the same can be said of cycling in the US? The UK? Canada?

McBTC

"The proportion of female cyclist fatalities was highest in the Netherlands (41%), while it was 7% or less in countries like Spain, Romania and Slovenia. Across the EU countries, over one third of cyclist fatalities were at least 60 years old (37%)."

Add to these facts that there have been zero cyclist fatalities in Vermont. What conclusions can we draw from these facts? Do they mean that apparently no women over 60 years old ride bikes in Vermont?

If you do not start out with a preconceived notion of what you want or expect to find, you can probably make a case for something or another out of these facts.

Jaywalk3r

You'r making the same mistake again. Either you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest, or you have such a poor understanding of statistics that you should really try to avoid using them.

Flip a fair coin three times, and it comes up heads three times. From this should we assume that the fair coin has no tails side? Vermont is a small, low population state. Your sample size is too small to be useful.

McBTC

That's the second ad hom attack and I suspect they won't be your last.

Jaywalk3r

You might want to check your definitions. I pointed out the error in your reasoning and provided two plausible reasons you were making it repeatedly. Thats not an ad hominem attack.

deapee

The only inconsistent thing I see there is you using one person (yourself) who may, or may not, be clumsier than the average person as their ENTIRE sample size, and thus concluding that another person's opinion was inconsistent.

FBinNY 

Walking head injury rates are extremely suspect when used to compare to bicycling head injury rates.

First of all, the basic fall rates that include walking are skewed by infants and elderly who, --- let's face it --- fall more than healthy people between 15 and 50 years of age. It's also hard to extrapolate other factors within the category, such as icy sidewalks in northern winters, tripping while walking in the dark, the effects of alcohol, etc.

Ignoring the data, I suspect that a healthy adult cyclist is more likely to have a head injury on the bike vs. while walking, though the incidence of either are extremely low, more in the range of freak accidents than normal, predictable risk.

So, while I'm neither a helmet advocate, nor user, I don't support the argument that helmets are less indicated for biking than walking (or driving a car), and consider the "relative risk" debate a distraction from consideration of actual risk, and the degree to which helmets reduce it.

IMO - the head injury risk to a reasonably skillful and careful cyclist is acceptably low, and helmets offer limited improvement to that already low risk. It's that "ONLY SLIGHTLY LOWERS AN ALREADY LOW RISK", logic that is at the core of my (personal) decision to go without.

Like the original writer's risk management pyramid, I prefer to focus on reducing the accidents that may cause head injuries rather than focusing on the consequences of those accidents. Of course some may rightly say we should do both, and I can't fault them in their opinion, even though we disagree.

BTW - if friends or family members ask me whether they should wear a helmet, my short answer is yes, and the longer answer is, "if you're asking, you lack the experience to make your own decision, so wear a helmet until you decide that it's not necessary for yourself".

I-Like-To-Bike

People actually ask you if they should wear a helmet?

The only question I have ever heard asked is "Why aren't you wearing a helmet?"

In my experience, nobody who asks any questions about helmet wear has any doubt whatsoever that a helmet should be worn.

I-Like-To-Bike

I hear that Antartica is a safe bicycling paradise for BF's deep thinkers. All that land mass and so few bicycling accidents.

FBinNY 

Once again you're resorting to strawman arguments.

I said "when friends or family...ask...". You return "People actually ask you if they should wear a helmet?", which implies something different.

So discounting that my friends and family members are people too, - No, "people" don't ask me, except once in a long while. Most of what I get isn't about "why...?" but the semi sarcastic "where's your helmet?" from PC cyclists and even some motorists. Lately, my canned answer has been "same place as your manners".

Those who know me and may have genuine reasons for asking get the more complicated answer - that I consider bicycling safe enough that a helmet isn't warranted.

But I'm careful not to "sell" the idea that helmets aren't necessary because I don't want to buy into perceived responsibility for anybody's injuries. As in "he'd have been OK if only he hadn't listened to that idiot FB!".

Dave Cutter

I went for a nice ride today. It was wonderful to get out. The weather here recently has really sucked. I wore half finger gloves today. I didn't need gloves... it wasn't cold. And it was still way too cool for my hands to sweat. But I wore the half finger gloves away... I didn't waste a single second thinking about it.

I didn't think about cycling glasses, sock style, jersey color, water bottle content or anything else trivial or debatable. I just wore the standard traditional kit... helmet included... and I enjoyed my ride.

Besides.... my wife depends on me being healthy (and alive). And being a practical and pragmatic person... she insists I wear a helmet.

CbadRider

We have a thread just for helmet pro/con discussion: https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...hread-2-a.html

Thread closed.