For the Record, the Final Report: THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLEHELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute

[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by the
anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single argument
for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I first
published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private mailbox on
the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate that a
mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by about one
third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters the
statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological motivation
should offer policymakers a description that goes no further than the
narrowest interpretation of the figures permit; any greater benefit
from the policy arrived at on hand of the figures is then a pleasant
surprise and bonus. That the surprise will be so much more pleasant
where unnecesary deaths are avoided is not a statistical
consideration, though as humans of course we rejoice when it happens.
In the light of the failure of the anti-helmet zealots to bring
forward any argument that wasn't patently stupid (such as screeching
that I claimed a mandatory helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some
such ridiculous number effective in saving lives, such as deliberately
misunderstanding the nature of the serious injuries included in the
New York study, such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to
under that a description of the size and length of the New York
compilation trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish
the original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30 August
2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.


HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.


HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very 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.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.


SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many lives.


THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile


THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.

If you are a real person you are among the most annoying ****s on the
planet. Would you please **** off and mind your own god damn life.

You're worse than a christian and that means a lot coming from me
because I normally reserve all my contempt for people that pray and
believe in higher powered beings while they continually **** this
planet into the toilet with their 18 kids and counting families.

Now **** off before I put some effort into finding out exactly who the
**** you are.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The actual data source might be useful:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 30, 12:33*am, Anton Berlin wrote:
If you are a real person you are among the most annoying ****s on the
planet. *Would you please **** off and mind your own god damn life.

You're worse than a christian and that means a lot coming from me
because I normally reserve all my contempt for people that pray and
believe in higher powered beings while they continually **** this
planet into the toilet with their 18 kids and counting families.

Now **** off before I put some effort into finding out exactly who the
**** you are.

It's not clear whether you're screeching at me because you think I've
made a case for mandatory helmet law or whether you're screeching at
me because you think I've made a case against a mandatory helmet law.
I haven't done either. I've just provided some honest numbers on which
policymakers, if interested, can make a decision, and cyclists, if
interested, can inform themselves. If you don't want to be informed,
pass by on the other side of the street. No one forces you to read
statistics that give you such heartburn.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework

On Aug 30, 1:26*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:20:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

wrote:
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The actual data source might be useful:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Thanks. I have it but your reference made me take another look.

Every cyclist who pronounces on road safety should have a copy. Among
other street myths knocked on the head is the one about intersections
being the most dangerous places a cyclist goes. "Pedalcyclist
fatalities occurred more frequently ... at non-intersection locations
(64%)". Oops.

Andre Jute
"The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day,
1898." -- Ralph Stein in "Vintage and Classic Cars", Bantam Books,
1977

Speaking as a normal and sane American, I will state categorically that no
matter what the alleged cost to society, no matter what past, present, or
future tediously compiled scholarly studies may show or be coerced into
saying, no matter how much doing otherwise abrades on your sensibilities and
commonsense, no matter the pain and suffering it may cause or save the
individual, and most of all no matter what our well meaning friends,
neighbors, family, and general nosy busy bodies oversseas and next door may
think we should do or how we should live, it is and must remain the inherent
right and responsibility of every adult man and woman to choose for
themselves and their minor charge what and whether they wear upon their feet
or heads in or outside their homes. Say no, quietly but firmly to those who
would have us live as they live, as though their way is the only way and
their light is the only light. Say it firmly and quietly, but in unison with
your neighbor, so our voices are heard clearly as but one in the far reaches
of the globe where they have long ago forgotten their freedoms, and envy you
yours. Our freedoms, hard fought and won through the shedding of blood, are
our burdens treasures of our children's children. Once lost, they will not
be regained easily. Say NO firmly, but never contemptuously or
contentiously. You see, our cousins were once free men also, but even their
self professed students of history have already forgotten.

Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and feel the
sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."

"No, thank you. I have my own hat."

"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."

"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."

"No, thank you."

"No." "No." "No."

===============

Andre Jute wrote:
[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by the
anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single argument
for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I first
published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private mailbox on
the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate that a
mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by about one
third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters the
statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological motivation
should offer policymakers a description that goes no further than the
narrowest interpretation of the figures permit; any greater benefit
from the policy arrived at on hand of the figures is then a pleasant
surprise and bonus. That the surprise will be so much more pleasant
where unnecesary deaths are avoided is not a statistical
consideration, though as humans of course we rejoice when it happens.
In the light of the failure of the anti-helmet zealots to bring
forward any argument that wasn't patently stupid (such as screeching
that I claimed a mandatory helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some
such ridiculous number effective in saving lives, such as deliberately
misunderstanding the nature of the serious injuries included in the
New York study, such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to
under that a description of the size and length of the New York
compilation trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish
the original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30 August
2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.


HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...Wt7vubH xju7Q

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.


HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very 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.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.


SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many lives.


THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile


THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.

On Aug 30, 10:45*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Speaking as a normal and sane American, I will state categorically that no
matter what the alleged cost to society, no matter what past, present, or
future tediously compiled scholarly studies may show or be coerced into
saying, no matter how much doing otherwise abrades on your sensibilities and
commonsense, no matter the pain and suffering it may cause or save the
individual, and most of all no matter what our well meaning friends,
neighbors, family, and general nosy busy bodies oversseas and next door may
think we should do or how we should live, it is and must remain the inherent
right and responsibility of every adult man and woman to choose for
themselves and their minor charge what and whether they wear upon their feet
or heads in or outside their homes. Say no, quietly but firmly to those who
would have us live as they live, as though their way is the only way and
their light is the only light. Say it firmly and quietly, but in unison with
your neighbor, so our voices are heard clearly as but one in the far reaches
of the globe where they have long ago forgotten their freedoms, and envy you
yours. Our freedoms, hard fought and won through the shedding of blood, are
our burdens treasures of our children's children. Once lost, they will not
be regained easily. Say NO firmly, but never contemptuously or
contentiously. You see, our cousins were once free men also, but even their
self professed students of history have already forgotten.

Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and feel the
sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."

"No, thank you. I have my own hat."

"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."

"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."

"No, thank you."

"No." "No." "No."

I like your passion, Mike. But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law; I've merely presented an honest
account of the New York cycling fatalities and serious accidents study
to counter the anti-helmet zealots' lies about it. Others can make of
it what they want.

Andre Jute
"Not only people, but apply it to cyclists too!" --Nexus7


********
Andre Jute wrote:
[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by the
anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single argument
for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I first
published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private mailbox on
the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate that a
mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by about one
third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters the
statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological motivation
should offer policymakers a description that goes no further than the
narrowest interpretation of the figures permit; any greater benefit
from the policy arrived at on hand of the figures is then a pleasant
surprise and bonus. That the surprise will be so much more pleasant
where unnecesary deaths are avoided is not a statistical
consideration, though as humans of course we rejoice *when it happens..
In the light of the failure of the anti-helmet zealots to bring
forward any argument that wasn't patently stupid (such as screeching
that I claimed a mandatory helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some
such ridiculous number effective in saving lives, such as deliberately
misunderstanding the nature of the serious injuries included in the
New York study, such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to
under that a description of the size and length of the New York
compilation trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish
the original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30 August
2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese.
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through
exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no
effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm
putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and
unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to
compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by motorists'
average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of
journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in
the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ite/Banco/7man...

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a
cycling helmet.

HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your
life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the
years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the
study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet
advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among
the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some
conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very 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.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm
to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the
cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.

SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the
very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York
compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of
head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for
a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather
than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's
an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once
more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that
is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many lives.

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the
citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist
they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists
anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial
helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract
more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full
including this copyright and permission notice.

Every cyclist who pronounces on road safety should have a copy. Among
other street myths knocked on the head is the one about intersections
being the most dangerous places a cyclist goes. "Pedalcyclist
fatalities occurred more frequently ... at non-intersection locations
(64%)". Oops.

Most deadly, yes. Most dangerous, no. While 64% percent of all
_fatalities_ were in "nonintersection" locations, 62% of all _crashes_
occur in intersections.

[Source: 2008 Traffic Safety Facts FARS/GES Annual Report (Final
Edition) http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf]

So intersections are more dangerous for bicyclists.

Also note that "nonintersection" crashes generally include mid-block
roll-out, wrong way cycling, cycling without lights in the dark, and
places where MUPs intersect roadways. Bike lanes don't increase
safety in any of these situations.

-Brian

On Aug 30, 5:44*pm, " wrote:
Every cyclist who pronounces on road safety should have a copy. Among
other street myths knocked on the head is the one about intersections
being the most dangerous places a cyclist goes. "Pedalcyclist
fatalities occurred more frequently ... at non-intersection locations
(64%)". Oops.

Most deadly, yes. *Most dangerous, no. *While 64% percent of all
_fatalities_ were in "nonintersection" locations, 62% of all _crashes_
occur in intersections.

[Source: 2008 Traffic Safety Facts FARS/GES Annual Report (Final
Edition)http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.pdf]

So intersections are more dangerous for bicyclists.

I take your distinction, Brian.

Also note that "nonintersection" crashes generally include mid-block
roll-out, wrong way cycling, cycling without lights in the dark, and
places where MUPs intersect roadways. *

This is a law enforcement problem,

Bike lanes don't increase
safety in any of these situations.

I'll analyze vehicular cycling if those wrongoes irritate me any
further g. Meanwhile thanks for making your point courteously; most
refreshing.

Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)

Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Andre Jute wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:45 am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Speaking as a normal and sane American, I will state categorically
that no matter what the alleged cost to society, no matter what
past, present, or future tediously compiled scholarly studies may
show or be coerced into saying, no matter how much doing otherwise
abrades on your sensibilities and commonsense, no matter the pain
and suffering it may cause or save the individual, and most of all
no matter what our well meaning friends, neighbors, family, and
general nosy busy bodies oversseas and next door may think we should
do or how we should live, it is and must remain the inherent right
and responsibility of every adult man and woman to choose for
themselves and their minor charge what and whether they wear upon
their feet or heads in or outside their homes. Say no, quietly but
firmly to those who would have us live as they live, as though their
way is the only way and their light is the only light. Say it firmly
and quietly, but in unison with your neighbor, so our voices are
heard clearly as but one in the far reaches of the globe where they
have long ago forgotten their freedoms, and envy you yours. Our
freedoms, hard fought and won through the shedding of blood, are our
burdens treasures of our children's children. Once lost, they will
not be regained easily. Say NO firmly, but never contemptuously or
contentiously. You see, our cousins were once free men also, but
even their self professed students of history have already
forgotten.

Say, "No, thank you. I shall walk on the beach barefoot today and
feel the sand between my toes, and the water lapping on my heels."

"No, thank you. I have my own hat."

"No, thank you. SPF 10 is more than I need."

"No, thank you. I still know my own way home."

"No, thank you."

"No." "No." "No."

I like your passion, Mike. But you should note that I haven't
advocated a mandatory helmet law; I've merely presented an honest
account of the New York cycling fatalities and serious accidents study
to counter the anti-helmet zealots' lies about it. Others can make of
it what they want.

Hmmm. Merely practicing the rhetoric I'll print on hats and caps to be worn
in lieu of mandated headwear. I'll make a note in the log... 2006 Columbia
Crest Grand Estates Cab, nicely round with a nutty finish; a bit long on sap
and self wind. It started as a simple missive pointing out the equivalence
of hats and shoes. Regulation is not needed for near 100% use. Some even
sleep wearing them.

All the same, "Just say NO, with no apology."




Andre Jute
"Not only people, but apply it to cyclists too!" --Nexus7


********
Andre Jute wrote:
[In thirteen days of filibustering and nasty personal assaults by
the anti-helmet zealots, they have not brought forward a single
argument for changing any of the facts and cautious conclusions I
first published thirteen days ago. Correspondence in my private
mailbox on the contrary has made a stronger case that my estimate
that a mandatory helmet law might reduce cycling fatalities by
about one third is overly cautious. All the same, in such matters
the statistician who doesn't wish to be accused of ideological
motivation should offer policymakers a description that goes no
further than the narrowest interpretation of the figures permit;
any greater benefit from the policy arrived at on hand of the
figures is then a pleasant surprise and bonus. That the surprise
will be so much more pleasant where unnecesary deaths are avoided
is not a statistical consideration, though as humans of course we
rejoice when it happens. In the light of the failure of the
anti-helmet zealots to bring forward any argument that wasn't
patently stupid (such as screeching that I claimed a mandatory
helmet law would be 100% or 97% or some such ridiculous number
effective in saving lives, such as deliberately misunderstanding
the nature of the serious injuries included in the New York study,
such as either deliberately or ignorantly refusing to under that a
description of the size and length of the New York compilation
trumps all mickey mouse "adjusted" studies), I republish the
original analysis unchanged as my final word until contrary
*evidence* of the same magnitude is produced. -- Andre Jute, 30
August 2010]

For the Record, the Final Report:
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking
free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as
much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or
Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is
controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or
the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for
instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism
rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of
a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an
emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than
reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and
statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as
part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in
their day.

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only
that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health
through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I
shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the
argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder
statistics and unexceptional general morality.

In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive
data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were
injured.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is
to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto by
motorists' average mileage accepted by most Americans as safe
enough.

Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken

By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration
of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that
in the US:

Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding

Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ite/Banco/7man...

It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less
likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the
benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater
per mile/per trip/per hour danger.

This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about
wearing a cycling helmet.

HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK

What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving
your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering
the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries
(3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of
the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not
helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the
period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here
are some conclusions:

• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal
crashes

Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/download...ike-report.pdf

This concatenation of facts suggests very 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.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in
the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere
between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less
firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved
the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted
above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck
helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration
difficult to overlook.

SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly,
only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.

First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to
the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the
New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the
fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.

So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities
nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely
more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the
statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some
impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if
even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy
for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live
rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every
year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one
third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and
political fact that is hard to igno Helmet wear could save many
lives.

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS

• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of
the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not
insist they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally
drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real
cyclists anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society
in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist
that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by
commercial helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those
deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are
still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may
attract more people to cycling

30 August 2010
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010. Free for reproduction in non-profit
journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in
full including this copyright and permission notice.