i have ben following a lot of the cycling message boards and theyre has been an increae of closed head injuries by helmet wearing riders on club rides, these are exactly the kinds of injuries that helmets are supposed to protect against, since there is so poor quality control of this alleged safty gear , who knows the hemet was up to the minimum standards to begin with, seems any time a independent outfit, not cpsc test the off the shelf helmets the helemts fail the minimum standards.
"Another person I used to know -- an amateur bike racer -- went out on a leisurely ride with some friends and rode into the wheel of the rider in front of him. He got a severe concussion, resulting in long-term language problems and personality change (for the worse).

In neither of these incidents was a car anywhere nearby. In both of these cases, a helmet would have helped."

Be careful. The safety nazis might take you up on it.

Moreover, the mix of vehicles in this snapshot is hardly a basis for analyzing the transpo modes of 5th Ave. residents. There is no reason to believe that mix is representative of the traffic on 5th. And cab drivers will use 5th Ave. or Park Ave. as downtown routes during rush hour even when the pick up their fares elsewhere, because those avenues do not have commercial traffic a flow a bit more smoothly. So we can't assume the cabs shown in this photo are all carrying 5th Ave. residents.

But I will agree that cab use on 5th is quite liberal. I expect many 5th Ave. dwellers who take cabs do so because they think cabs are faster than buses or the subway, not due to snobbery or misanthropy. If the middle lane of 5th Ave north of 59th St. was converted to buses only (just as DoT plans to do south of 59th St.), you'd have only one non-bus lane remaining. I expect many 5th Ave. dwellers would then shift from cabs to the resulting speedier bus service, eve if it meant rubbing elbows with the "great unwashed." Those who did not would be relegated to sitting in a slow moving single lane composed primary of cabs and balck cars that kept stopping everytime a passenger got in or out. Hardly a "first class" experience.

So it must be a case of public transport not being attractive enough.

It's not so much about it not being "attractive" in the sense of functional, but in the sense of glamorous. This is Fifth Avenue, where lots of people don't drive, but take cabs because they think they're too good for the bus or subway, or too important, or that the buses and subways are dangerous or dirty, or some combination.

In New York there are plenty of people who are willing to share public transportation with the Great Unwashed, but there are many who will not. At least they're taking cabs instead of driving private cars that will need to be parked. The only way I can think of to get them out of the cabs would be to have some "first class" express bus service that would allow them to continue to feel like they're above the masses.

If they're going somewhere not served by public transport, then that's a sign that it needs to be built there.

check out this picture, if you know how to ride a bike, you can do it in any sort of clothing, with one hand, mp3-player in your ears and next to each other with a childres seat attached to your stear in the middle of busy amsterdam traffic and above the ground subways.All at the same time without a helmet. trust me, i live there

Congestion pricing is a "stick" and safe bicycle parking (cameras are not necessary... I mean look where you ended up!) is a "carrot".

p.s. Nice tie

However, I know from lots of discussions that in the places in Canada and the USA where the racks are used there is no measurable amount of bus vs. vulnerable road user injury or deaths determined to be caused by the racks.

European cyclists oppose the racks, too. Someone from Fietserbond in the Netherlands asked me how he could be for front bus racks when he was against bull-bars on cars and SUVs. I responded that front bus racks serve a purpose.

In other words, I would think that the health benefits alone of having more people riding and less using cars would outweigh any projected health cost (injuries and deaths, plus effects of tailpipe emissions and noise). That is the basis for a research project I am trying to organize.

Compared to Canada and the USA, there are more options for bicycle carriage on transit here, to be precise, there are proportionately more trams, light-rail and but subways which allow it. Still, many medium-sized and smaller towns all over Europe are only served by buses, and bringing full-size bikes inside is not always possible due to space. Some larger cities like Budapest and Prague also have very hilly areas.

In case the front bike rack solution is not accepted here, I am working on other ideas.

The best solution of course is reduce crowding of public transport vehicles. This also makes things easier for people with prams and with mobility restrictions.

In the UK, parental paranoia, (largely) induced by media reports of 'stranger danger', means that significantly fewer children walk or cycle to school than they did 20 years ago. Far fewer are allowed out to play.

So we have more obesity, a generation of children for whom being driven 'everywhere' is 'normal'. Consequently they are far less aware of traffic dangers (as pedestrians - never mind as cyclists.)

The abduction and murder rates for young people are unchanged - AND (statistically) if they are victims it's likely to be a, known, family member.

Everyone has a duty to themselves to be careful - whether it's walking, cycling, driving, playing sport or cooking. (Drinking and setting houses on fire with chip pans is fairly common...)

If people are cycling/driving faster than the conditions justify, putting faith in a helmet is perhaps not the answer.

If poor road surfaces are an issue, campaign harder.

I don't want to be seen to be trivialising this with a tragedy -

http://www.sundayherald.com/latestnews/hubnews/display.var.2282777.0.0.php

but things happen.

Wear a helmet if you want - especially if you consider the risks you take justify it.

But be consistent. Do you use seat belts in taxis, buses, the subway? If they don't have airbags would you wear a helmet.

Do you wear a stab vest on the street?

People in places with lots of cyclists tend not to wear helmets.

Are they -

a) foolish

b) deluded

c) more skilled

d) slower

e) better segregated from traffic

f) cycling amongst motorist who cycle

g) enjoy better maintained roads/paths

h) other

i) a combination of the above

I don't know the answer though I suspect it might be i)

I am completely in love with riding my bicycle but I admit that comment scared me. I don't want to end up in the ER every year due to a cycling accident.

Some people I've known haven't been so lucky. A person I work with was riding in the country last year, without a helmet, when he had some sort of run-in with dogs (he has no memory of the incident, so we don't know the details). He woke up in the hospital, where he stayed several weeks. He's mostly recovered now, but still a bit spacy.

Another person I used to know -- an amateur bike racer -- went out on a leisurely ride with some friends and rode into the wheel of the rider in front of him. He got a severe concussion, resulting in long-term language problems and personality change (for the worse).

In neither of these incidents was a car anywhere nearby. In both of these cases, a helmet would have helped. The danger of injury isn't from hitting a car, but from hitting the ground -- and gravity will always be with us, even after Peak Oil.

I don't think it's a good idea to scare people out of biking by guilt-tripping them about helmet use. But once you're on a bike, it's a good idea to wear a helmet. For your own good.

What's logic got to do with it...

I'm merely saying that's bus companies, health and safety 'experts' etc. say.

The sort of people who say 'you couldn't get insurance to do that' - without actually asking whether the could or not.

HOWEVER there was a time when it was fashionable to have 'bull bars' on the front of cars/vans and there was plenty of evidence that that resulted in more serious injuries to pedestrians.

But maybe it was due to the sort of people who wanted 'bull bars' and the way they drove...

Now perhaps you can explain

"As long as we feel compelled to wear a helmet"

where's the compulsion coming from? is it logical?

I hate my damned helmet. I call it my “head shackle.” It is a Crown of Thorns and a Scarlet Letter that our homicidal auto culture forces us to wear because we dare to be different and not follow the lemmings in their shiny metal boxes. If I'm riding for speed then I wear my helmet without complaint but I shouldn't need it to cruise 1/2 mile down the street to get my Sunday bagel.

While I was out in Davis CA for a bike planning conference, people asked the local bike planners why they didn't push for more helmet use amongst the locals. The reply was simple. They didn't want to make cycling more inconvenient or scare people from riding their bikes because they knew that it is more important for safety to have more people cycling then to push helmet use and risk lowering the numbers of cyclists.

After a week of riding around town I started to realize that Davis was an exceptionally safe place to ride a bicycle, similar to some of the best bicycle towns in Europe. So I left the helmet behind and for the first time in a long time I truly felt free while riding a bike. I had none of the guilt for riding helmetless that I feel when I do so back home in New Jersey because I knew what I was doing was perfectly safe. And it was the wonderful bike culture and city planning in Davis that made it possible for me to do so.

As long as we feel compelled to wear a helmet for even the most casual bike rides, we are not free as cyclists and we will not be living in a true cycle culture.

Also BTW, Chris you got to explain why putting bikes on the front of buses is considered too dangerous in the UK. I can't see any logical reason to say this.