"http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/bike_woe_all_on_the_head_regionalnews_dan_kadison.htm"
New wrinkle in the eternal debate on helmet safety
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 5:28am
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 5:39am
#1
sorta
"Saw the spot on the news this morning about it. Apparently, motorists assume that folks wearing helmets are ""more experienced"" so it's safer to drive closer.
It's ridiculous and the Post is doing a disservice to the community by publishing and touting this view.
I have written to the Post and urge you all to do the same. This is a dangerous article."
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 7:04am
#2
Incorrect conclusion
Actually, I would guess that helmeted cyclists are hit by cars less frequently than non helmeted cyclists by this article. First, it does not mention any incidence of accidents. All it says it that drivers will give a helmeted cyclist less clearance. That means the driver is conscience of the cyclist's presence. I reckon there are fewer accidents when the cyclist is noticed by drivers. Also implied is that these drivers have enough control of their vehicle to deal with passing a cyclist. Look at 2 scenarios. In the first, which doesn't appear to apply here, the driver is either drunk or doesn't see the cyclist. In the other the driver is so unsure of either his own ability to pass a cyclist or the cyclist's road skills that he gives the cyclist a 6 foot berth. In the former situation we are at risk. In the latter, what is another 3 and a half inches of less clearance?
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 8:26am
#3
Yeah, don't draw any conclusions yet
"I wouldn't read too much into it. First of all, it is not a blind study, so there could be unintentional bias. Dr. Walker may have unconsciously been riding further from the curb when wearing a helmut. The best way to do the study would be to have two groups of people ride around with the sensor, one without helmuts and one with, and not tell them what the study was trying to measure, and also somehow take into consideration how far they ride from the curb. Secondly, there is no indication in the press release whether the results met the standard of being ""statistically significant""; it just says the study ""suggests"" motorists will pass closer to cyclists with helmuts. However, you need a significance test to be sure you'd get a similar result if you repeated the study again - for instance, if individual cars vary considerably in how closely they pass by cyclists, a 3-inch difference on average may fall well within the statistical margin of error and could have happened by random chance."
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 11:31am
#6
I'd rather have them drive close than cross the line to give me space, only to get into a head-on collision whlie passing me. The head-on would probably end up taking me out.
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 7:11am
#7
full press release and links
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 8:03am
#8
Bicyclists who wear helmets are more likely to be struck by cars
Folks, we are in A LOT of trouble if ANYONE thinks that one person's observations, without objective measurement devices, is research.
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 8:15am
#9
read much?
"""Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.""
...
""The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention."""
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 8:39am
#10
"It's still one person's set of observations and the experimenter has his hands on every one of them,so to speak. The study would have to be repeated under better conditions to be really convincing. I would be surprised if the journal article didn't have that caveat. At minimum, the follow-up study would need to be ""double-blind"" to be considered bullet-proof"
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 9:05am
#11
Yes I know, I can read (nm)
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 12:04pm
#12
And
While the measurement of the car/cyclist proximity is objective, the reasons Dr. Walker gives for the proximity are totally subjective. I didn't see any mention of other conditions that existed (amount of traffic, width of roads, etc.) while these experiments were conducted. I would think any serious study would have to include those factors as well.
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 6:13pm
#13
I don't know why I am replying to this. I agree that - yes, wearing a helmet in the chance that one has an accident that involves a head injury is highly recommended.
However, I just want to point out - are many of you aware that you are criticizing the press release or a journalist's summary of the study - not the original study which (one would assume) includes the statistics, conditions of the road, etc? How many times do you actually see this summarized in most news sources (rarely, but criticize the news source or author, not the original study).
Also, just a side point, even if the original author made this conclusion, that may apply specifically to the UK or region in the UK.
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 9:28am
#14
"""debate"" ??"
"I guess there are still ""debates"" about seat belts and smoking. In South Africa you can debate the cause of AIDS. In Iran and Malibu you can debate the existence of the Holocaust."
Tue, 09/12/2006 - 9:57am
#15
Highlights from City’s Bike Fatality & Injury Report
http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/12/highlights-from-citys-bike-fatality-injury-report/
Highlights from City’s Bike Fatality & Injury Report
Bicycle lanes and helmets may reduce the risk of death.
* Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
* Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
* Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%).
* Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bike lane.
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 1:20pm
#16
good food for thought
Interesting report Eloy -- thanks. Regarding helmets, and lots of other things, we have to look at causation. Is it that safer-than-average cyclists (say, skilled club cyclists) tend to use helments, so they get killed less often? Or do helmets help prevent deaths in a signficant way?
To track down the mean of the helmets stats and get a better sense of causation, it would be useful to see what % of cyclists used helmets at all, and also to look at the type/severity of injuries that killed cyclists. We know many of them involved head injuries. Did they also involve massive trauma to the torso?
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 1:57pm
#17
right hooks
a large percentage of fatalities to bicyclist in NYC are the result of illegal right turning vehicles. when a vehicle runs your whole body over in this manner, the helmet doesnt offer much if any protection. Remember that bicycle helmets are only tested for impacts replicating 14 mph for a flat anvil surface and 11 mph for irregular curb shaped surface, http://www.helmets.org/testing.htm also remember that treks top selling helmet was outed by consumer reports for not even meeting these very minimal requirement.
from recent injuries and fatalities reported, helmets don't do a very good job when do a header over the handlebars.
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 1:29pm
#18
Wear it!
Please advocate the use of helmets. You might be saving a life...
Wed, 09/13/2006 - 6:18pm
#19
Living Proof
I am living proof 4 times over that helmets save lives or at least prevent serious head injury...and 2 of those times I was definitely going well over 14 m.p.h. However, none of my crashes involved a motor vehicle. A helmet is definitely an added safety factor and IMHO should be worn by all cyclists, but even a helmet isn't going to protect you from several tons of steel!
