Man dies after biking into retaining wall

Mark Hickey wrote:
wrote:


If the common line were "Consider wearing a helmet if you're doing
something unusually risky on a bike," things wouldn't be nearly so
polarized, would they?

Thing is, we're not very good at determining what's risky.

That's absolutely true. For example, because of 20 years of intense
helmet promotion, people are now convinced that cycling is quite risky.

It's not. Check out the link below.


To me, making helmet wearing a habit is the best approach... yeah,
sometimes I'm going to wear my styrofoam hat when there's virtually
no
chance of head injury, but I'd rather wear it too often than not
often
enough, if you know what I mean. It's like wearing a seat belt - I
put it on by habit, even when I'm going to be just moving my car
across a parking lot. Overkill? You betcha - but I'd rather "just
do
it" than have to calculate the potential for danger every time I got
in the car.

To me, any comparison between seat belts and bike helmets is specious.
On the one hand, we have a safety measure which lasts as long as the
vehicle, has approximately zero cost in terms of vehicle price or
convenience, and is designed and certified using very realistic tests -
tests which accurately mimic the crashes that cause fatalities. On the
other hand, we have a consumer product which can cost thirty percent of
the cost of the vehicle, is claimed to need replacement every few
years, and is designed and certified to protect ONLY against the types
of falls every little kid has always safely survived: a stationary
topple.

Not surprisingly, helmets designed against stationary topples have had
no effect on serious head injury rates. Yet people still pretend
they're as effective as seat belts!

Replace your seat belt with a gift-wrap ribbon. Then you'll have an
accurate comparison.


As for races and other events requiring helmets, I can't imagine it
any other way. While you and I agree that wearing a helmet doesn't
make you impervious to injury, it is a reasonable way to somewhat
reduce the potential for injury (though we can argue ad infinitum
about how much reduction we're talking about). In our current legal
climate, it would be suicidal for an event promotor / sponsor to not
require helmets, right wrong or indifferent. It would also be
suicidal for them to not require participants to obey traffic laws,
even though many can be safely broken.

First, I ran a large invitational century for seven years. I never
required helmets. It caused no problems.

Second, I _did_ provide specific information on traffic laws and other
safety tips. How many centuries do that? The default warning is
"Always wear your helmet" - Period! The overemphasis on helmets is
absolutely nonsensical.

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

How dangerous is cycling? See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

On 27 Mar 2005 14:27:54 -0800, wrote in message
. com:

To me, any comparison between seat belts and bike helmets is specious.
On the one hand, we have a safety measure which lasts as long as the
vehicle, has approximately zero cost in terms of vehicle price or
convenience, and is designed and certified using very realistic tests

More similar than you think: no country in the world can show any
reduction in road traffic fatalities from compulsory seat-belt
legislation. In the UK mandatory the seat-belt law was preceded by a
report commissioned by the Department of Transport which showed
exactly this - it was buried - and followed by (a) no reduction in
road traffic fatalities and (b) the largest recorded rise in
pedestrian, cyclist and rear passenger fatalities. In other words,
drivers were at fractionally (but only fractionally) lower risk but at
the cost of substantially increased risk to others.

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

Stephen Harding wrote:

[...]
More people bicycling means more people in favor of
bike-centric, or at least bike-friendly infrastructure?

Unfortunately no. More people cycling usually leads to more
bike-unfriendly infrastructure like bike-lanes or bike-ways.

More motorists at ease with bicyclists using the roadways?

Yes.

Ingo.

(Ingo Keck) wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

[...]
More people bicycling means more people in favor of
bike-centric, or at least bike-friendly infrastructure?

Unfortunately no. More people cycling usually leads to more
bike-unfriendly infrastructure like bike-lanes or bike-ways.

Not always the case...

http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycl...n/bikeplan.PDF

Plenty of wide (6'/2m or more) bike lanes on a lot of the major roads,
well maintained. Other than Beijing, the best bike infrastructure in
any city I've lived in.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame