Comments on: Statistics and Helmets http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Greenway enthusiast http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4990 Greenway enthusiast Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:56:07 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4990 interesting info on helmet laws and bicycle usage. thanks for the website with references. interesting info on helmet laws and bicycle usage. thanks for the website with references.

]]> By: bartonfink http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4758 bartonfink Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:26:16 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4758 <blockquote> Does anyone have information/data showing what the impact of mandatory helmet laws actually has been in places that have done this on the numbers of people who ride?? </blockquote> http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1020

Does anyone have information/data showing what the impact of mandatory helmet laws actually has been in places that have done this on the numbers of people who ride??

http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1020

]]> By: Greenway enthusiast http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4730 Greenway enthusiast Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:25:42 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4730 Perhaps a good approach would be to separate fatalities from collisions as we review the data. It seems from the data that helmets do help prevent fatalities. That is, if you get hit by something like a car or truck, your chances of dying from a head injury (a major cause of death in bike accidents) is reduced by wearing a helmet. Makes intuitive sense and is supported by the data. What helmets probably do NOT do is to reduce the number of collisions. To reduce the number of collisions will likely take a combination of things: changing the design of the roads to make it safer for bicyclists, encouraging bike riding alot (interesting data from Europe suggests that you can reduce the number of accidents betw motor vehicles and bikes by having more bikers on the road), and driver/biker education campaigns to make us all respect the rules of the road and look out for each other better. The problem becomes if something to increase helmet wearing (ie mandatory helment laws) would actually decrease the number of cyclists on the roads then we might not increase overall safety at all. Does anyone have information/data showing what the impact of mandatory helmet laws actually has been in places that have done this on the numbers of people who ride?? Perhaps a good approach would be to separate fatalities from collisions as we review the data. It seems from the data that helmets do help prevent fatalities. That is, if you get hit by something like a car or truck, your chances of dying from a head injury (a major cause of death in bike accidents) is reduced by wearing a helmet. Makes intuitive sense and is supported by the data.
What helmets probably do NOT do is to reduce the number of collisions. To reduce the number of collisions will likely take a combination of things: changing the design of the roads to make it safer for bicyclists, encouraging bike riding alot (interesting data from Europe suggests that you can reduce the number of accidents betw motor vehicles and bikes by having more bikers on the road), and driver/biker education campaigns to make us all respect the rules of the road and look out for each other better.
The problem becomes if something to increase helmet wearing (ie mandatory helment laws) would actually decrease the number of cyclists on the roads then we might not increase overall safety at all. Does anyone have information/data showing what the impact of mandatory helmet laws actually has been in places that have done this on the numbers of people who ride??

]]> By: d http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4638 d Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:33:03 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4638 Comparing car accidents involving bikes to those involving pedestrians doesn't work, as the risk factors are completely different. Consider: - A pedestrian might have better use of his arms and hands when falling after being hit (for a better, safer landing). - A pedestrian walks at a slower speed than a cyclist bikes (2 - 3 mph versus 10 - 20 mph). The force of impact with a car at any speed is greater for cyclists than it is for pedestrians. - A pedestrian spends a minimal amount of time walking on exactly the same space as cars. Cyclists ride with high-speed traffic at all times, meaning the chances of coming in contact with a fast moving vehicle is greater for cyclists. 100% of pedestrians who died after being hit by a car weren't wearing helments, you say? Big deal. 100% of people who died on plane crashes were probably wearing seatbelts, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't wear one while I'm in my car. I agree with the commenter who suggested that arguments about these statistics tend to obscure the reality. In the focus on death, what's missing from these statistics are figures on minor injuries that would have become major injuries or even fatalities, had it not been for helmets. Comparing car accidents involving bikes to those involving pedestrians doesn’t work, as the risk factors are completely different.

Consider:

- A pedestrian might have better use of his arms and hands when falling after being hit (for a better, safer landing).

- A pedestrian walks at a slower speed than a cyclist bikes (2 – 3 mph versus 10 – 20 mph). The force of impact with a car at any speed is greater for cyclists than it is for pedestrians.

- A pedestrian spends a minimal amount of time walking on exactly the same space as cars. Cyclists ride with high-speed traffic at all times, meaning the chances of coming in contact with a fast moving vehicle is greater for cyclists.

100% of pedestrians who died after being hit by a car weren’t wearing helments, you say? Big deal. 100% of people who died on plane crashes were probably wearing seatbelts, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t wear one while I’m in my car.

I agree with the commenter who suggested that arguments about these statistics tend to obscure the reality. In the focus on death, what’s missing from these statistics are figures on minor injuries that would have become major injuries or even fatalities, had it not been for helmets.

]]> By: podsednik http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4557 podsednik Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:18:57 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4557 The thing is, seat belts don't discourage drivers from driving. But helmet laws probably will cause some cycilsts to stop cycling, or to cycle less. Since the health benefits of regular cycling have been shown to outweigh the risks of injury, such laws are counterproductive. Add in the fact that each cyclist is safer the more cyclists overall are on the road, and it's clear that a mandatory helmet law is a double whammy. The thing is, seat belts don’t discourage drivers from driving. But helmet laws probably will cause some cycilsts to stop cycling, or to cycle less.

Since the health benefits of regular cycling have been shown to outweigh the risks of injury, such laws are counterproductive.

Add in the fact that each cyclist is safer the more cyclists overall are on the road, and it’s clear that a mandatory helmet law is a double whammy.

]]> By: Anon http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4547 Anon Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:19:21 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4547 Bike advocates complaining about helmet laws just detract from the cause. The complaint contributes to the image of bikers as reckless law-breakers. It is just as silly as drivers complaining about seat belt laws. A decent helmet costs about $40. If it might save your life, why not wear it? The more advocates talk about safety, the better they sound. The more they talk about being exempt from safety laws, the worse they sound. Bike advocates complaining about helmet laws just detract from the cause. The complaint contributes to the image of bikers as reckless law-breakers. It is just as silly as drivers complaining about seat belt laws. A decent helmet costs about $40. If it might save your life, why not wear it? The more advocates talk about safety, the better they sound. The more they talk about being exempt from safety laws, the worse they sound.

]]> By: Glenn http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4543 Glenn Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:33:52 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4543 Fleiboy - It's very important to make sure that these statistics are interpreted the right way. A misinterpretation of the data would cause a policy analyst to incorrectly conclude that simply requiring helmets would dramatically reduce cyclist deaths. This is not like smoking. Cycling is perhaps the least polluting, least noisy, most healthy and economical way to travel around the city. It's something that should be encouraged and promoted, not something that should be eliminated if proven dangerous. Instead it should be approaches as something like drinking water that should be kept safe to encourage health everyday living and a better society. I think helmets are good, but their value should not overestimated to think that they alone can prevent deaths. Bike lanes, education campaigns, good training for motorists and cyclists on proper road behavior (I would target males especially). Fleiboy –

It’s very important to make sure that these statistics are interpreted the right way. A misinterpretation of the data would cause a policy analyst to incorrectly conclude that simply requiring helmets would dramatically reduce cyclist deaths.

This is not like smoking. Cycling is perhaps the least polluting, least noisy, most healthy and economical way to travel around the city. It’s something that should be encouraged and promoted, not something that should be eliminated if proven dangerous. Instead it should be approaches as something like drinking water that should be kept safe to encourage health everyday living and a better society.

I think helmets are good, but their value should not overestimated to think that they alone can prevent deaths. Bike lanes, education campaigns, good training for motorists and cyclists on proper road behavior (I would target males especially).

]]> By: Fleiboy http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4542 Fleiboy Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:21:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4542 ok, i trust you were referring to the 9/15 post on the UK research about car proximity. point taken. does engwicht or anyone else offer bicycle lane safety studies that would illuminate the DOT's conclusions? ok, i trust you were referring to the 9/15 post on the UK research about car proximity. point taken. does engwicht or anyone else offer bicycle lane safety studies that would illuminate the DOT’s conclusions?

]]> By: Fleiboy http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4541 Fleiboy Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:01:10 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4541 oh, and sean, where is this: "see the findings on how closely cars travel based on helmet wearing." oh, and sean, where is this:

“see the findings on how closely cars travel based on helmet wearing.”

]]> By: Fleiboy http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4540 Fleiboy Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:59:48 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4540 This discussion seems off-key, as if we're in 1951 discussing smoking and lung injuries. The report says that 74% of the studied deaths involved head injuries, and in half the head was the key recorded injury. Even if one can't document that helmet-wearing is a proven correlate to surviving a crash, it is unlikely that we'll find out helmet use is irrelevant. Proper interpretation of statistics matters, but fussing over the helmet statistics distracts from a clear public health imperative; increase helmet wearing among riders. Meanwhile, I bet only a small percentage of riders really believe that the helmet provides immunity, and an even smaller percentage take risks based on that belief. Anyone know of data addressing this question? Presumably Bell or some other manufacturer has looked into this. I do agree that bicycle advocates would benefit from knowing some data not just on the question of whether helmetless riders engage in other risky behaviors, but also whether those killed/injured were frequent or occasional riders. This discussion seems off-key, as if we’re in 1951 discussing smoking and lung injuries. The report says that 74% of the studied deaths involved head injuries, and in half the head was the key recorded injury. Even if one can’t document that helmet-wearing is a proven correlate to surviving a crash, it is unlikely that we’ll find out helmet use is irrelevant. Proper interpretation of statistics matters, but fussing over the helmet statistics distracts from a clear public health imperative; increase helmet wearing among riders.

Meanwhile, I bet only a small percentage of riders really believe that the helmet provides immunity, and an even smaller percentage take risks based on that belief. Anyone know of data addressing this question? Presumably Bell or some other manufacturer has looked into this.

I do agree that bicycle advocates would benefit from knowing some data not just on the question of whether helmetless riders engage in other risky behaviors, but also whether those killed/injured were frequent or occasional riders.

]]> By: BillDozer http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4512 BillDozer Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:19:32 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4512 Of course it's prudent to wear a helmet, but I believe there are many (both cyclists and not) that believe a helmet is like a magic force-field, protecting the wearer from harm and/or death. This is, of course, not so. A helmet, when worn properly, is very effective at protecting your head in a very particular sort of crash. Many fatalities result from internal injuries, which are not prevented by wearing helmets. It makes great sense to wear a helmet while riding, but as there are many other ways of being killed on your bicycle than just cranial injuries, I think that there cannot be a causal relationship between helmets and cycling fatalities. That said, ride safe. Of course it’s prudent to wear a helmet, but I believe there are many (both cyclists and not) that believe a helmet is like a magic force-field, protecting the wearer from harm and/or death. This is, of course, not so.

A helmet, when worn properly, is very effective at protecting your head in a very particular sort of crash. Many fatalities result from internal injuries, which are not prevented by wearing helmets.

It makes great sense to wear a helmet while riding, but as there are many other ways of being killed on your bicycle than just cranial injuries, I think that there cannot be a causal relationship between helmets and cycling fatalities.

That said, ride safe.

]]> By: Sean http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/comment-page-1/#comment-4509 Sean Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:57:13 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/19/statistics-and-helmets/#comment-4509 There are all sorts of interesting issues raised by the helmet numbers. For instance, do people who take the risk of riding without a helmet take other risks that put them at increased danger of collision with trucks and cars? In the absence of any hard conclusions on the efficacy of helmets in preventing death and injury, it still seems prudent to wear a helmet. It's logical that wearing one adds a layer of protection. The downside of wearing one is minimal. (But, see the findings on how closely cars travel based on helmet wearing.) There are all sorts of interesting issues raised by the helmet numbers. For instance, do people who take the risk of riding without a helmet take other risks that put them at increased danger of collision with trucks and cars?

In the absence of any hard conclusions on the efficacy of helmets in preventing death and injury, it still seems prudent to wear a helmet. It’s logical that wearing one adds a layer of protection. The downside of wearing one is minimal. (But, see the findings on how closely cars travel based on helmet wearing.)

]]>