Mark I can’t tell if you’re just trolling me or if you’re actually the Lord Haw-Haw of cycle commuting but I’m too fucking sore to even consider this at face value.
You want to be in bed with the blatantly anti-cycle-commuting mayor of the DNV, that’s on you. You want to blame me for getting hit and hurt because I didn’t have the right colour helmet and I wasn’t wearing pads? Go jump in a lake.
Posted by: AndrewMajor
Mark I can’t tell if you’re just trolling me or if you’re actually the Lord Haw-Haw of cycle commuting but I’m too fucking sore to even consider this at face value.
You want to be in bed with the blatantly anti-cycle-commuting mayor of the DNV, that’s on you. You want to blame me for getting hit and hurt because I didn’t have the right colour helmet and I wasn’t wearing pads? Go jump in a lake.
C'mon Andrew, I'm not trolling, anti-cycling, blaming you nor relishing the fact you got hit and hurt. I offered info on why motorcyclists and by extension cyclists are hard to see and suggestions to possibly improve that for everyone's benefit. Vik made a comment about victim blaming in regards to Mayor Little's comment and I suggested why he might have made those comments and linked to a study about it. Nothing I said suggested you're at fault in your accident. Like shit, I don't even know what colour helmets you might own or what you were wearing at the time you got so I'm having a hard time figuring out why you think I'm blaming you for getting hit. I'll just chalk it up to you simply being po'd that you did get hit. Hopefully someone might benefit from the info I shared.
Nice. I like that study, where they don't have helmet data for 85% of the victims, zero data on "thoracic protection" for either injury prevention OR usage rates, and yet still conclude cyclists should wear both to prevent injury. Seems like good science.
You could compare/contrast that with the myriad of research around helmet use around the globe for commuting, safe infrastructure, cycling rates, and injury rates, and it might be interesting. Or the causes of crashes and injuries (hint: its drivers). But I'm not here to do anyone's homework for them.
Cars are very dangerous to the people and property around them - its the responsibility of the user to ensure they don't injure or kill others. Putting some lens of "eQuAl rESpoNsiBilITy" for people on bikes is absolutely victim blaming bullshit, and needs to be called out loudly at every opportunity.
Posted by: cooperquinn
Nice. I like that study, where they don't have helmet data for 85% of the victims, zero data on "thoracic protection" for either injury prevention OR usage rates, and yet still conclude cyclists should wear both to prevent injury. Seems like good science.
You could compare/contrast that with the myriad of research around helmet use around the globe for commuting, safe infrastructure, cycling rates, and injury rates, and it might be interesting. Or the causes of crashes and injuries (hint: its drivers). But I'm not here to do anyone's homework for them.
Cars are very dangerous to the people and property around them - its the responsibility of the user to ensure they don't injure or kill others. Putting some lens of "eQuAl rESpoNsiBilITy" for people on bikes is absolutely victim blaming bullshit, and needs to be called out loudly at every opportunity.
Yes, the authors stated that a limitation of the study was that helmet usage data was unavailable for 85% of the patients in the study. However, they also noted that 48.3% of Albertans over 12 wear a helmet while cycling. So instead of cherry picking a limitation that the authors noticed maybe consider the bigger picture in that safety gear can help reduce the severity of injuries. As the lead author stated in the news article I also linked to: “Trauma to the head is still the No. 1 injury in both cycling groups, which underscores the importance of wearing a good-quality, properly fitted helmet,” says Dr. Chad Ball, the senior author of the research paper. “At the same time, almost half of the injuries we noted were either to the chest or abdomen, suggesting that greater physical protection in those areas could also help reduce or prevent serious injury.” - emphasis mine
Likewise, a pragmatic approach says that it makes sense for an individual to take some precautions in face of potential injury for an activity they participate in. Pretty much everyone I know wears a helmet while cycling. Lots of people wear knee/elbow pads when mtb'ing. Lots of people use lights when cycling on city streets at night. All these things are examples of measures that can help reduce the risk of crashes/collisions and hopefully injury as well. My point is not to say someone is at fault if they get hit for not having a bright enough light or the right colour helmet, the point is that there are measures that people can take to reduce the risks of cycling on the road. It's up to the individual whether they want to use those measures or not.
I find it just bizarre that people want to twist info on cycling safety into some sort of witch hunt where apparently I think that Andrew is to blame.
Proper infrastructure is the only answer.
Politicians love mandatory helmet laws for one reason only: they don't cost anything.
Just imagine if we removed all sidewalks and pedestrian crossings and made helmets and body armour mandatory for pedestrians.
My only regret here is I originally put "pErSoNal rEspOnSibILitY" and then changed it to "eQuAl rESpoNsiBilITy", as you've gone for "It's up to the individual". Andrew had lights, and a helmet on. He was hit. This is the fault of a DRIVER, full stop. End of story - anything else you bring into this is akin to "But what was she wearing?"
"suggesting that greater physical protection in those areas could also help reduce or prevent serious injury.” Well, Dr. Chad, lets look at some research.
Your plastic hat won't save you from drivers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059
Drivers are more dangerous around people who have a helmet on. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30472528/
There's no correlation between mandatory helmet legislation and injury rates. https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a39001523/cars-kill-bike-helmets-dont-change-that/
Helmet laws reduce the number of people riding bikes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22497060/
Increasing cycling mode share increases safety. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1731007/
The places with the highest cycling mode share have the lowest fatality rates. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/06/02/why-helmets-arent-the-answer-to-bike-safety-in-one-chart/
EDIT.
Adding that even Giro says the plastic hats they make aren't designed to help when you're hit by a driver. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/?sh=5a300ae3cbd4
But hey, at least we can ticket unhoused people for it! https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helmet-citations-go-homeless-people
And, blaming bullshit like this does nothing but perpetuate dangerous conditions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33017730/
Vital did an inside line podcast with Trill Will the announcer for dhse, who's day job is or was cycling/transportation infrastructure planning for some city gov. He made some interesting points about bike lanes etc.
Commiserations Major, hope all heals and is settled well.
Posted by: cooperquinn
My only regret here is I originally put "pErSoNal rEspOnSibILitY" and then changed it to "eQuAl rESpoNsiBilITy", as you've gone for "It's up to the individual". Andrew had lights, and a helmet on. He was hit. This is the fault of a DRIVER, full stop. End of story - anything else you bring into this is akin to "But what was she wearing?"
I fully agree the driver is at fault and I've already said that, so please don't put words in my mouth to the contrary. I've also said my point was to offer info on how to be safer when riding and it was not directed at Andrew in particular- it was general information that anybody could take. Consider the wording of my suggestions, I purposely used the word we to include myself and all other cyclists into those suggestions. As for it's up to the individual, it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear a white helmet or a black one, use two lights on the back of their bike or one, wear reflective clothing or not. Again, please don't try and misrepresent that to mean something it doesn't.
Any suggestion that I'm somehow blaming Andrew for getting hit is repugnant.
Posted by: cooperquinn
Your plastic hat won't save you from drivers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059
I'm not going to bother going through all your links as you're clearing using select info from these articles to try and prove a point that I did not make.
However, from this one article it does say "37% cyclists from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets."
So based on that helmets can and do make a difference and save lives.
Posted by: [email protected]
Proper infrastructure is the only answer.
Yup. I feel fortunate that the majority of my cycle commute is either on designated bike routes with traffic calming/diversion methods or on separated bike lanes. Those stretches definitely reduce the risk of getting hit by an inattentive driver. Even with that though there are still risks that need to be mitigated.
Jesus, just quit already. You're trying to dig yourself out of the grand canyon you drove into while texting.
Posted by: burnskiez
Jesus, just quit already. You're trying to dig yourself out of the grand canyon you drove into while texting.
Sorry dude, but I'm not going to sit here and let people make false accusations that I'm blaming Andrew for his crash or want to victim blame in general. That's just not true. I had one goal with my post, share some info that adds to cycling safety. How that is a bad idea I will never know.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: cooperquinn
Your plastic hat won't save you from drivers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059
I'm not going to bother going through all your links as you're clearing using select info from these articles to try and prove a point that I did not make.
However, from this one article it does say "37% cyclists from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets."
So based on that helmets can and do make a difference and save lives.
You're cherrypicking. Here's the full excerpt.
"The results indicate that helmets could have helped the most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles and in certain cases when an intracranial injury was the primary cause of death. Altogether 44 cyclists (37%) from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.
**Helmets would not have helped cyclists in most high-energetic crashes, especially when motor-vehicles or trains were involved. **Some rear-end crashes outside urban areas also resulted in injuries when a helmet would not have helped."
And, if you don't think my what I've provided is accurate, the onus is on you to provide data that refutes it.
This is the fault of a DRIVER, full stop.
Cooper nailled it.
Penalties need to be way harsher* to make drivers slow down and THINK!!! There's a reason the UK urban speed limit is 30mph (and 20 mph in some areas). People are less likely to die being hit at 20 v 40.
*I'm thinking loss of licence for knocking someone off and manslaughter in the case of death.
Also (and I hate saying this) cyclists (especially those on BSOs - a lot of which are still illegal) need to obey the road rules. The amount of cyclists running reds in London (UK) is staggering.
Posted by: cooperquinn
You're cherrypicking. Here's the full excerpt.
"The results indicate that helmets could have helped the most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles and in certain cases when an intracranial injury was the primary cause of death. Altogether 44 cyclists (37%) from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.
Helmets would not have helped cyclists in most high-energetic crashes, especially when motor-vehicles or trains were involved. Some rear-end crashes outside urban areas also resulted in injuries when a helmet would not have helped."
That's not cherry picking as I'm not disputing your bolded line. I chose a quote to show that helmets do help and the study you linked showed that. I agree with the idea that helmets are not going to save people in every type of crash. Like your quote says, in high energy crashes helmets aren't effective and that's porbably due to what happens to the brain inside the skull. That's seen in injury studies in sports like football and hockey where helmets are worn but brain injuries still occur due to rapid deceleration and the brain smashing into the inside of the skull. It's similar for internal organs in high speed car crashes as well. Rapid deceleration from a high speed causes injuries. However, to say that helmets have no benefit and don't help prevent injuries is just false. If the choice is helmet or no helmet I'm going to pick helmet as it does offer some protection and an increased chance of survival as that study points out.
Forum jump:
