|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report
about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf What is so good about it this particular report that it isn't based on a sample, it is an entire universe, all the deaths on the roads in one of the largest cities in the world. And it isn't a snapshot, it covers a ten-year period. And it doesn't have to guess at causes: it had full access to the police reports and hospital reports because it was compiled for, among others, the Police Commissioner and the Health Commissioner. This is the sort of report that no one in private industry can ever afford to make. (I should know; at one stage I controlled market research budgets totalling 160mUSD per annum, and I sure as hell didn't ever have six or eight or ten employees sitting around idle that I could assign for a year or two or three to slugging through ten years of police accident scene reports, hospital filing cabinets, etc. Just for expressing such a desire, I would have been given over to the men in white coats! We're talking really major work here.) Something else that is brilliant about this report is that its conclusions are humbly drawn by a statistician who never once overreaches himself. He never goes beyond the self-evident and the obvious, because with such statistics -- the entire universe, I say again! -- he doesn't have to take any chances: he can stick to certainties. Here are some certainties from the report: • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. These two facts together are already an argument for wearing a helmet. But, when we add the next one, the argument for wearing a helmet becomes very strong indeed: • Compare the very low level of helmet use in fatal crashes (3%) to that in non-fatal crashes leading to serious injury (13%). Implication: As we already know that head injuries are involved in 74% of fatalities, this suggests strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous. It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying. Furthermore we can say that at least ten per cent of those who did die, say 22 people, could well have lived if they had worn a helmet. The difference is probably not big enough to support mandatory helmet laws in the States (1) but the writing is on the wall, I think. Andre Jute Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain (1) In European countries where there is a major bike culture, cyclists ride differently and drivers drive differently, and elsewhere there are too few cyclists to attract the attention of the European Parliament and EU Commission, so there is no need for such a law. But if there were a need, such a thorough report would very quickly lead to legislation and regulation. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Oct 30, 5:05*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: *http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf *What is so good about it this particular report that it isn't based on a sample, it is an entire universe, all the deaths on the roads in one of the largest cities in the world. And it isn't a snapshot, it covers a ten-year period. And it doesn't have to guess at causes: it had full access to the police reports and hospital reports because it was compiled for, among others, the Police Commissioner and the Health Commissioner. This is the sort of report that no one in private industry can ever afford to make. (I should know; at one stage I controlled market research budgets totalling 160mUSD per annum, and I sure as hell didn't ever have six or eight or ten employees sitting around idle that I could assign for a year or two or three to slugging through ten years of police accident scene reports, hospital filing cabinets, etc. Just for expressing such a desire, I would have been given over to the men in white coats! We're talking really major work here.) Something else that is brilliant about this report is that its conclusions are humbly drawn by a statistician who never once overreaches himself. He never goes beyond the self-evident and the obvious, because with such statistics -- the entire universe, I say again! -- he doesn't have to take any chances: he can stick to certainties. Here are some certainties from the report: • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. These two facts together are already an argument for wearing a helmet. But, when we add the next one, the argument for wearing a helmet becomes very strong indeed: • Compare the very low level of helmet use in fatal crashes (3%) to that in non-fatal crashes leading to serious injury (13%). Implication: *As we already know that head injuries are involved in 74% of fatalities, this suggests strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous. It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying. Furthermore we can say that at least ten per cent of those who did die, say 22 people, could well have lived if they had worn a helmet. The difference is probably not big enough to support mandatory helmet laws in the States (1) but the writing is on the wall, I think. Andre Jute *Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain (1) In European countries where there is a major bike culture, cyclists ride differently and drivers drive differently, and elsewhere there are too few cyclists to attract the attention of the European Parliament and EU Commission, so there is no need for such a law. But if there were a need, such a thorough report would very quickly lead to legislation and regulation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Oct 30, 7:08*am, rover109 wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:05*pm, Andre Jute wrote: Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: *http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf *What is so good about it this particular report that it isn't based on a sample, it is an entire universe, all the deaths on the roads in one of the largest cities in the world. And it isn't a snapshot, it covers a ten-year period. And it doesn't have to guess at causes: it had full access to the police reports and hospital reports because it was compiled for, among others, the Police Commissioner and the Health Commissioner. This is the sort of report that no one in private industry can ever afford to make. (I should know; at one stage I controlled market research budgets totalling 160mUSD per annum, and I sure as hell didn't ever have six or eight or ten employees sitting around idle that I could assign for a year or two or three to slugging through ten years of police accident scene reports, hospital filing cabinets, etc. Just for expressing such a desire, I would have been given over to the men in white coats! We're talking really major work here.) Something else that is brilliant about this report is that its conclusions are humbly drawn by a statistician who never once overreaches himself. He never goes beyond the self-evident and the obvious, because with such statistics -- the entire universe, I say again! -- he doesn't have to take any chances: he can stick to certainties. Here are some certainties from the report: • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. • Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. • Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. These two facts together are already an argument for wearing a helmet. But, when we add the next one, the argument for wearing a helmet becomes very strong indeed: • Compare the very low level of helmet use in fatal crashes (3%) to that in non-fatal crashes leading to serious injury (13%). Implication: *As we already know that head injuries are involved in 74% of fatalities, this suggests strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous. It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying. Furthermore we can say that at least ten per cent of those who did die, say 22 people, could well have lived if they had worn a helmet. The difference is probably not big enough to support mandatory helmet laws in the States (1) but the writing is on the wall, I think. Andre Jute *Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain (1) In European countries where there is a major bike culture, cyclists ride differently and drivers drive differently, and elsewhere there are too few cyclists to attract the attention of the European Parliament and EU Commission, so there is no need for such a law. But if there were a need, such a thorough report would very quickly lead to legislation and regulation. I agree that little more need be said. DR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
Andre Jute writes:
Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. Consider that 89% of crashes occurred at or near intersections. Marked bike lanes generally do not extend through intersections---consequently, a high percentage of all crashes would not be in a marked bike lane even if the road had bike lanes. What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? -- Joe Riel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:23:11 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:
What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? This might help: http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/ http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/google-earth-bike-map/ and: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikenetwork.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bikeroutedetailsfy07-fy11.pdf Unfortunately, neither the summary, or the original report bothers to mention the length of existing bike paths, chosing only to mention the length added. Still, 200 miles of exclusive bike lanes, and 82 miles of shared lanes ADDED in the last 5 years is non-trivial. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Oct 30, 8:23*pm, Joe Riel wrote:
Andre Jute writes: Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: *http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. *Consider that 89% of crashes occurred at or near intersections. *Marked bike lanes generally do not extend through intersections---consequently, a high percentage of all crashes would not be in a marked bike lane even if the road had bike lanes. What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? * -- Joe Riel That bike lanes have not been thoroughly carried through is not a reason for rejecting evidence that where they exist they work. It is a reason for instituing bike lanes at high risk locations to save more lives. Here are some possible examples of solutions for intersections: 1. Bicycle and pedestrian flyovers. (That other day in Cork I saw a whole convention of wheelchair users use a bridge over a motorway and stopped to talk to them. it was the first time in their lives that any of the had ever been south of the motorway...) 2. Lights that stop motor traffic for bicycle-only crossing periods. 3. Rearranging the "yellow box" (exclusion) zones so that bicycles stop on front of cars, and go first when the lights change. 4. Dividing roads between cars-only, bikes-only and pedestrian-only. Bike malls, I love the idea already, even though i just had it. 5. This is before the expansion in the links Jeff offers. 6. More ideas if we'll put our minds in gear instead of being mindlessly negative as a first impulse. Andre Jute My mind is in gear. Is yours? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Oct 30, 9:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:23:11 -0700, Joe Riel wrote: What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? * This might help: http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/ http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/google-earth-bike-map/ and: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikenetwork.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bikeroutedetailsfy07-fy11.pdf Unfortunately, neither the summary, or the original report bothers to mention the length of existing bike paths, chosing only to mention the length added. *Still, 200 miles of exclusive bike lanes, and 82 miles of shared lanes ADDED in the last 5 years is non-trivial. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 It would be really very nice to follow up such a massive, and massively indicative, and massively reliable, study. But the cost must have been enormous, so I don't hold out much hope. Anyway, the lesson has been learned, except for incorrigbles like Krygowski, who are anti-helmet zealots as a matter of religious conviction, so the politicians and their professional advisors probably feel money for research should be spent elsewhere now, perhaps on traffic patterns as they change with more bike lanes and more cyclists. Andre Jute Not a political animal -- thank God! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: It would be really very nice to follow up such a massive, and massively indicative, and massively reliable, study. But the cost must have been enormous, so I don't hold out much hope. Assorted NYC bicycling statistics: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikestats.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_projectbicycle.shtml Speaking of burning public money, some group sued to block the conversion of a traffic lane into a bicycle lane in New Yuck. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/prospectparkwest.shtml In order to justify the change, NYC apparently collected some before/after statistics, all of which indicate impressive improvements. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/20110120_ppw.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/20110120_ppw_data.pdf (with data). I suspect that some of the increase in bicycle traffic was the result of attracting riders from parallel streets, that are now comparatively unsafe after the lane conversion. Data was also not collected year round, making seasonal variations another source of error. Sigh. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:23:11 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:
Andre Jute writes: Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. Consider that 89% of crashes occurred at or near intersections. Marked bike lanes generally do not extend through intersections---consequently, a high percentage of all crashes would not be in a marked bike lane even if the road had bike lanes. What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? It is amazing the information that can be obtained from this report. For example. "7% of fatal crashes occurred on limited access highways, where bicycling is prohibited." An attempt was made to classify the contributing factors for each accident with some 1899 ( 55%) of accidents categorized. Of these accidents where a contributing factor could be assigned (55% of all accidents) the Vehicle Only amounted to some 1222 (35%) of categorized accidents while Bicycle Only amounted to some 455 (13%) (with 6% to a combination of vehicle and bicycle). Of the Vehicle Only category the most common attributing causes were classified as Driver inattention (31%), unspecified human error (29%), failure to yield (9%), speeding (4%) and disregarding traffic controls (4%) Of the bicycle only category the most common were a bicyclist crossing into a vehicle path 84%, disregarding traffic controls (8%), failure to yield (2%), speeding (1%) and turning improperly (1%). It would appear that of the Vehicle Only category some 207.58 accidents amounting to 16.9% of the Vehicle Only classification were due to Highway Code violations. Of the Bicycle Only classification some 436 (96%) were due to Highway Code violations. As 15 (7%) of bicycle fatalities occurred on limited access highways, where bicycling is prohibited and 436 (96%) of accidents that were categorized as a Bicycle Only contributing factor were acts in violation of Highway Codes it appears that in any discussion of bicycle safety there may just be significant contributing factors other then safety helmets. -- John B. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The biggest and best bicyclist/accident study ever: helmets saved lives
On Oct 31, 3:13*am, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:23:11 -0700, Joe Riel wrote: Andre Jute writes: Here is a really thorough and statistically ultra-respectable report about cycling casualties and serious injuries in New York. Download it from: *http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ke-report..pdf • Only one fatal crash (out of 225) with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane. Implication: Separate bicycle facilities work. I wouldn't draw that conclusion. *Consider that 89% of crashes occurred at or near intersections. *Marked bike lanes generally do not extend through intersections---consequently, a high percentage of all crashes would not be in a marked bike lane even if the road had bike lanes. What is the percentage of roadway with marked bike lanes in New York city? * It is amazing the information that can be obtained from this report. For example. "7% of fatal crashes occurred on limited access highways, where bicycling is prohibited." An attempt was made to classify the contributing factors for each accident with some 1899 ( 55%) of accidents categorized. Of these accidents *where a contributing factor could be assigned (55% of all accidents) the Vehicle Only amounted to some 1222 (35%) of categorized accidents while Bicycle Only amounted to some 455 (13%) (with 6% to a combination of vehicle and bicycle). Of the Vehicle Only category the most common attributing causes were classified as Driver inattention (31%), unspecified human error (29%), failure to yield (9%), speeding (4%) and disregarding traffic controls (4%) * Of the bicycle only category the most common were a bicyclist crossing into a vehicle path 84%, disregarding traffic controls (8%), failure to yield (2%), speeding (1%) and turning improperly (1%). It would appear that of the Vehicle Only category some 207.58 accidents amounting to 16.9% of the Vehicle Only classification were due to Highway Code violations. Of the Bicycle Only classification some 436 (96%) were due to Highway Code violations. As 15 (7%) of bicycle fatalities occurred on limited access highways, where bicycling is prohibited and 436 (96%) of accidents that were categorized as a Bicycle Only contributing factor were acts in violation of Highway Codes it appears that in any discussion of bicycle safety there may just be significant contributing factors other then safety helmets. -- John B. It's an amazing report indeed, not least for its scale. As we're considering the efficacy of bicycle helmets, I don't see the need for your plan to exclude from the tally bicyclists who weren't 100% compliant with any and all known or future or possible laws. That would be like testing the efficacy of seat belts by excluding cars with broken taillights from the test. Andre Jute This is so simple, we could let Krygowski do it |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bizarre coincidence, but saved by their helmets. | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 134 | October 5th 10 10:34 PM |
outlawing road racing would have saved many lives this year | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 94 | August 16th 10 05:42 PM |
Bicyclist accident | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | January 5th 10 09:27 PM |
Recovered from accident, bicyclist and his wife to ride acrosscountry | SJ Carter | General | 0 | April 2nd 08 02:01 AM |
Law on cycle helmets 'would save lives' | Mucco | UK | 14 | May 18th 04 12:52 PM |