Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater
chance to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least
around here).

You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists. I've seen a few reports around here (San
Diego) in the last few years of high mileage cyclists being
killed---I've seen at least as many of low mileage cyclists (usually
kids) getting killed. The latest being a week ago at an apartment
complex where I used to live; kid on a bike run down and left to die
in the parking lot.


Joe

Joe Riel writes:

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater
chance to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least
around here).

You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists.

Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
racers.)

I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
difference in annual mileage.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Joe Riel writes:

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal,
which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists.

Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
racers.)

I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
difference in annual mileage.

I agree, there are more low mileage cyclist than high-mileage cycling
enthusiasts.

But if someone is implying that high mileage cycling - however you
define "high mileage" - is likely to cause serious injury, I don't
agree with that.

Check the surveys of League of American Bicyclist riders, or check the
data on CTC riders from Britain. These enthusiastic cyclists do not
seem to be at great risk. As an example, LAB riders go an average of
11 years between accidents causing a mere $50 damage.
Really, folks, cycling is NOT very dangerous!

writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Joe Riel writes:

"Steven M. Scharf" writes:

You have to look at the total number of cyclists: while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal,
which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists.

Many of my neighbors are low mileage cyclists who put in maybe 10
miles per year, mostly on roads with next to zero traffic. We have
serious cylcists in town who put in over 5000 miles per year (e.g.,
racers.)

I'd agree with Steven based on personal observations. While skill
helps a lot, it only gives you a safety margin of a factor of 5 or
so (see _Effective Cycling_) and a factor of 5 is way less than the
difference in annual mileage.

I agree, there are more low mileage cyclist than high-mileage cycling
enthusiasts.

Try reading it again.

But if someone is implying that high mileage cycling - however you
define "high mileage" - is likely to cause serious injury, I don't
agree with that.

I'm suggesting that, for a given set of road conditions and cyclist
speed, there will be a specific accident rate per hour with the
accidents Poisson distributed.

Check the surveys of League of American Bicyclist riders, or check the
data on CTC riders from Britain. These enthusiastic cyclists do not
seem to be at great risk. As an example, LAB riders go an average of
11 years between accidents causing a mere $50 damage.
Really, folks, cycling is NOT very dangerous!

Who said it was particularly "dangerous"? I simply pointed out that
your chances of an accident grows the longer you do it. The same is
true for driving. You'll find that if you typical LAB rider reduced
his annual mileage by a factor of 2, all else being equal, he'd go 22
years between "accidents causing a mere $50 damage."

Really, Krygowski, this is not a difficult concept. Even you should
be able to grasp it (I suspect you do and simply can't resist spinning
to push your silly agenda.) What Krygowski is doing is putting up one
of his typical smokescreens - the points being made were about the
relative accident rates of two populations, not whether cycling was
particularly dangerous or not. He'd rather not have people realize
that, as it is raises doubts regarding his argument against helmets.

After all, what was said is that riding skill accounts for about a
factor of 5 in the accident rate per mile, and that the distances
people ride vary by way more than a factor of 5.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Who said it was particularly "dangerous"? I simply pointed out that
your chances of an accident grows the longer you do it. The same is
true for driving. You'll find that if you typical LAB rider reduced
his annual mileage by a factor of 2, all else being equal, he'd go 22
years between "accidents causing a mere $50 damage."

Really, Krygowski, this is not a difficult concept. Even you should
be able to grasp it (I suspect you do and simply can't resist spinning
to push your silly agenda.) What Krygowski is doing is putting up one
of his typical smokescreens - the points being made were about the
relative accident rates of two populations, not whether cycling was
particularly dangerous or not. He'd rather not have people realize
that, as it is raises doubts regarding his argument against helmets.

After all, what was said is that riding skill accounts for about a
factor of 5 in the accident rate per mile, and that the distances
people ride vary by way more than a factor of 5.

But remember that the greater your mileage, the smaller your likelihood of
having a non-cycling related accident while not on your bike. Whether your
total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk per hour of
cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average non-cycling related
activity.

Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due to
cycling in terms of health benefits.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright

Benjamin Lewis wrote in part:

Whether your
total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk per hour
of
cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average non-cycling
related
activity.

Importantly, it will actually depend on the risk per hour of
your own personal brand of cycling, not on the average risk
over the whole population of cyclists.

Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due
to
cycling in terms of health benefits.

Cyclists get injured a lot. But the benefits of cycling are so
great that the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. The
benefits, however, can not lessen the risk, which will include
the possibility of being bludgeoned by a car no matter how
wonderful the benefits are.

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los
Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright

I wonder if he said that in his early spread out house mode or in his
later
plastic forms mode. That museum looks like it would roll right past Los
Angeles.

Robert

wrote:

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

Whether your total (yearly) risk goes up or down will depend on the risk
per hour of cycling relative to the risk per hour of your average
non-cycling related activity.

Importantly, it will actually depend on the risk per hour of your own
personal brand of cycling, not on the average risk over the whole
population of cyclists.

Yes, clearly.

Also, I think it's fair to take into account the risk reduction due to
cycling in terms of health benefits.

Cyclists get injured a lot. But the benefits of cycling are so great that
the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. The benefits, however, can
not lessen the risk, which will include the possibility of being
bludgeoned by a car no matter how wonderful the benefits are.

I'm talking about the risk of injury/sickness/death per year, due to all
causes. I believe that cycling *does* decrease this risk, even though the
risk of certain types of accidents may be slightly increased. I believe
this is true whether or not you wear a styrofoam helmet.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.
-- Frank Lloyd Wright

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:18:19 GMT,
(Norman Wilson) wrote in message
:

Except that for some reason the helmet often seems to escape mention
when the victim was wearing one. It's almost as if the reporters
don't want to undermine people's faith in the magic foam hats...

If the helmet isn't mentioned, how do you know it was there?

From following up on stories of cyclist fatalities and injuries,
including events witnessed by or involving people I know. Sample
sizes are small, of course.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:08:05 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote in message
. net:

The reports I've seen on bicycle fatalities usually do mention helmet
use, both ways. But non-helmet use fatalities are not all that common,
because the people that put in a lot of miles, and have a greater chance
to be a victim, almost always are wearing helmets (at least around here).

The opposite is true he the really high mileage cyclists are old
leathery weatherbeaten tourists, who rarely wear helmets. Helmets are
the armour of choice for mountain bikers and roadies around here, both
of which groups cower indoors when the weather gets bad :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:16:20 GMT, Joe Riel wrote
in message :

while one high
mileage cyclist has a greater chance (other things being equal, which
they are not) of being hit than one low mileage cyclist, there are
more low mileage cyclists.

And they ride worse...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound