On Apr 14, 10:27 pm, wrote:

All three of you need to learn a lot about the real data. The fatality
rate from bicycling is infinitesmal. There are roughly fifteen
million miles ridden between bike fatalities. People who cycle
regularly have been shown to live longer than typical motorists. Many
researchers have found that the risk of cycling is less, per hour,
than the risk of motoring, or less than the risk of walking near
traffic.

Man, you need to go in the jungle more often... "Riding a bicycle in
peak-hour traffic is at best harrowing, and at worst downright
treacherous." The predators are everywhere... "Driving really seems to
bring out the animal in us; put an otherwise considerate and socially
adapted person in a metal cage and stick them into peak hour traffic
and you'll see them shout, swear and punish other road users in ways
they'd never dream of in a social situation." You are the bottom of
the food chain... "Size is everything; trucks intimidate 4WDs, who
muscle out compact cars. Commuting motorcyclists learn quickly to be
hyper-vigilant around anything with 4 wheels - but even their lot
can't compare to the vulnerability of bicycle riders, who travel much
slower than the speed limit, are able to own very little road space,
and typically wear only the bare minimum of protective gear." Hey, but
you may learn to use some camouflage and pretend to be from the
opposite gender... "Furthermore, Dr. Walker wore a long wig on some
trials to see if perceived gender had any effect on overtaking
distances. It certainly did - drivers gave him an average 14cm more
room." It's fascinating to know how the power games are played in the
jungle... "Perhaps, as the vehicle size data suggests, drivers simply
see overtaking a cyclist as an opportunity to stamp their road
authority on a weaker, more vulnerable competitor for tarmac space."
COMPETITION IS NOT ALLOWED, says the lion.

I'm NOT saying though that we should avoid the predators and become
couch potatoes. What I'm saying is that WE MUST GET ORGANIZED if we
want to come out from the back alleys, gutters and sidewalks.

And it's all science...

Bicycle helmets - a road safety hazard?

May 14, 2007 A British scientist has proved that wearing a bicycle
helmet actually exposes cyclists to further risk. Overtaking traffic
passed helmeted cyclists with significantly less room than unhelmeted
cyclists - and the bigger the vehicle, the closer the average passing
distance was. As civilised as we pretend to be elsewhere, we
consistently act like might is right on our roads.

Road psychology is fascinating. Driving really seems to bring out the
animal in us; put an otherwise considerate and socially adapted person
in a metal cage and stick them into peak hour traffic and you'll see
them shout, swear and punish other road users in ways they'd never
dream of in a social situation. It's mankind at its prmitive worst;
the thinnest point in our fragile veneer of civilisation, where the
law of the jungle underpins our actions and social conventions go out
the window.

Size is everything; trucks intimidate 4WDs, who muscle out compact
cars. Commuting motorcyclists learn quickly to be hyper-vigilant
around anything with 4 wheels - but even their lot can't compare to
the vulnerability of bicycle riders, who travel much slower than the
speed limit, are able to own very little road space, and typically
wear only the bare minimum of protective gear.

Riding a bicycle in peak-hour traffic is at best harrowing, and at
worst downright treacherous. While cyclists are able to feel in some
control over what's happening in front of them, car drivers in the
outermost lane tend to see them as an annoying chicane and overtake
leaving a fraction of the space they'd give another car. And research
from the University of Bath shows that where a cyclist is wearing
protective clothing, drivers are likely to cut in even closer.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath,
used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance
sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in
Salisbury and Bristol last September.

Dr Walker, who was struck by both a bus and a truck in the course of
the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half
the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was
struck. He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get
particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches)
closer with the helmet than without. The research has been accepted
for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

Size of vehicle also played a role: the average car passed 1.33 metres
away from the bicycle, the average white van was 10cm closer. The
average truck was a further 9cm closer, and the average bus 4cm closer
again - 23cm closer on average than a car.

Furthermore, Dr. Walker wore a long wig on some trials to see if
perceived gender had any effect on overtaking distances. It certainly
did - drivers gave him an average 14cm more room.

What are the implications? Perhaps when drivers see male riders suited
up with all the correct gear they assume they'll be more predictable
and able to get themselves out of trouble. Maybe there's some sort of
chivalrous courtesy going on when female riders are left wider gaps.
Perhaps, as the vehicle size data suggests, drivers simply see
overtaking a cyclist as an opportunity to stamp their road authority
on a weaker, more vulnerable competitor for tarmac space.

Either way, the research throws a very interesting slant on the
mandatory bicycle helmet laws found in many areas. While helmets are
clearly an advantage in a fall, there's little to suggest they do much
when the rider is hit by a car or truck. And if a helmeted cyclist
experiences around 20% more close overtaking moves than his unhelmeted
contemporary, does wearing a helmet actually make bicycle commuting
more dangerous?

A fascinating psychological study. Want to see a person's true
character? Study them alone, in a car, in traffic. And prepare to be
shocked.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7255/