bicycle safely

90 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
hey, you started it so you have to provide evidence

"""""some guy"" mentions China and the Netherlands as two places where people don't use helmets and suggests that there are few injuries there. Where is the evidence to support that? China has a huge population of cyclists and only recently have cars been gaining but how does he know how many cyclists are injured or killed. Does he have statistics from the Chinese government? In the Netherlands there is a large use of bicycles but there are many cycling paths that are physically separated from auto traffic. Does he have statistics from the Netherlands? I have cycled a lot in Japan where many people cycle and the roads are more crowded than here. There are some cycling paths that are separate but I would be surprised if there were few cycling injuries there.""

You ask me for evidence, when in fact since you are positing that helmets can or should make a big difference in reducing serious injuries, it should be you who is providing the evidence. Do you have any such evidence?

That's what should disturb you -- recognition that you are speaking as if you know something when you don't. If I've disturbed you in that manner, that's a good thing and you should thank me for it -- for pushing you to be a critical thinker.

Cycling not especially dangerous. In NYC about 120,000 people a day ride a bike. In the course of a year, between 10 and 15 people die while cycling. Surely there are much larger numbers of serious injuries (not just to the head, but to other parts of the body too) but I don't know of any evidence that says cycling is particularly dangerous compared to other activities. If you do, let's hear them. And BTW, piling up random anecdores is not evidence. Let's see some stats -- especially in comparison to other common activities such as walking or travelling in a car. I've given one data point -- 10 to 15 deaths annually with 120,000 people doing the activity per day. What info do you have?

One other thing. A big problem I have with the crazy pro-helmet people is that too often helmets are the focus of cycling ""safety."" Rather than saying, how can we as cyclists be safer, or how can we as a society make cycling safer, too much focus is placed on protecting 2/3 of the head (and not very effectively, as you suggest). The post that started this whole discussion is an example of that."

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
you're profoundly misguided

"""Let us push helmet manufacturers to make safer helmets, make sure that the helmets we wear are properly fit, that our bicycles are properly maintained and that we ride as safely as possible and ignore ignorance.""

What a profoundly misguided area to put emphasis on in cycling safety.

If you genuinely care about cycling safety, there are two other areas in which your attention and energy could and should be spent. One is safe riding by you or by your friends and colleagues. Safety in traffic (as in life) is a combination of luck and skill/knowledge. We may not be able to control the first, but we surely can control the second.

The second is working to make the streets safer in general -- by writing/talking to elected officials and supporting bicycle advocacy groups.

Of course, you can wear a helmet, practice relatively safe cycling and be a good advocate for safer streets. That's nice. But if you want to put *more* energy into safety, I think protecting a small part of your body is not the way to do it.

"

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)
Helmut-phobia

Why are we talking about this? I can't believe there's a debate. Usually debate happens when there is some difficulty in weighing cost versus benefit. OK, so we can't be sure of the *exact* benefit of wearing a helmut except by anecdotes (we're not collision scientists, are we?), but tell me, what is the cost??

Sure, you have to buy the helmut. Spread out over many rides, this cost is neglible. Now, bear in mind that no matter how many rides you spread it over, the per-ride cost to you of getting killed or gravely injured because of not wearing a helmut is close to INFINITE. This is a silly debate.

Anonymous's picture
Matt (not verified)

"John described the costs very eloquently: ""These over-the-top statements are profoundly anti-cycling. They suggest the activity is so dangerous it requires exceptional protection.""

Think about the situations associated with helmets: battle, race-car driving, football, motocross, firefighting, construction work. All ""seem"" inherently dangerous. It's sad that cycling is seen as so dangerous that one feels compelled to always wear a helmet, especially when statistics exist that seem to suggest that cycling is actually relatively safe. If this apparent danger keeps newcomers away from cycling, sadder still.

Think about all the people who've ever said to you: ""You ride a bike in NYC? That's so dangerous! You must be crazy!"" When governments are faced with cycling-related conflicts, how often do they act to make streets safer? And how often do they just enact helmet laws?
"

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

"I guess, but I'm not going to be the one to sacrifice my own head based on some questionable idea about collective psychology.

Cycling IS dangerous, as is driving and crossing the street. That's why we have seatbelt laws, and ""walk/ don't walk"" signs.

However, cycling is not special. Helmuts are advised for any activity involving high velocities and little covering or the possibility of getting violently knocked off your feet. You can quibble about the need of some casual commuter in a quiet suburb for a helmut, but an intense NYCC fitness rider definitely is not in that category."

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
try this experiment

"""Cycling IS dangerous, as is driving and crossing the street. That's why we have seatbelt laws, and ""walk/ don't walk"" signs.""

So we are supposed to choose one safety procedure per activity and that's enough.

You don't think that wearing a helmet while sitting in the back of a cab would protect you? You don't believe that it's quite possible to hit your head on the window of a cab, even with a seatbelt on? I suggest you try this the next time you're in a cab. Put the seat belt on, then try to tip you body such that your head touches the window next to you. Your head *will* be able to touch the window. Now imagine an impact the cab from the side and think about this question: why not wear a helmet when you travel by cab?"

Anonymous's picture
Neile (not verified)
"""why not wear a helmet when you travel by cab?"""

"'cause it would look d*rky ...

-----------

""Through a glass d*rkly'?

Corinthians_13

"

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Sure, wearing a helmut in the back of a cab would help you. But that's a dumb comparison.

There's a cost to carrying a helmut around whenever you might get in a cab. You can't carry everything that would protect you around with you all day every day. This is still cost versus benefit.

Cycling on the other hand is an organized activity. You set out purposefully to do it. So when you leave, you just bring your helmut. Your destination is back home, where you can then put your helmut away.

Wearing a helmut while cycling is something whose cost becomes negligible, whereas bringing a helmut with you everywhere you go is not because the cost is having to find a way to carry it around, which doesn't go away.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
obvious way to carry a helmet

"""Sure, wearing a helmut in the back of a cab would help you. But that's a dumb comparison.
There's a cost to carrying a helmut around whenever you might get in a cab. You can't carry everything that would protect you around with you all day every day. This is still cost versus benefit.
Cycling on the other hand is an organized activity. You set out purposefully to do it. So when you leave, you just bring your helmut. Your destination is back home, where you can then put your helmut away.""

I don't understand your objections to taking a helmet to use in a cab or a car -- they seem rather contrived. If you typically carry a briefcase or purse or backpack when you head out to the door, just strap the helmet to it. There, that's easy -- it'll be handy.

""Wearing a helmut while cycling is something whose cost becomes negligible, whereas bringing a helmut with you everywhere you go is not because the cost is having to find a way to carry it around, which doesn't go away.""

Well, the obvious way to carry it around is to wear it."

Anonymous's picture
"Chainwheel" (not verified)
Helmets

"""Helmuts are advised for any activity involving high velocities and little covering or the possibility of getting violently knocked off your feet.""

Who's the German guy (Helmut)?

Bike HELMETS are designed and tested to protect against vertical falls, not high speed crashes. I've been bicycling since 1956 (as a kid) and I've worn a helmet since 1979. In all that time, my head has never hit the ground. I wear a helmet because it MAY offer some protection. I don't put down those who choose not to wear one.

What I object to, is the notion that helmets are the Number 1 factor in bicycle safety. One would certainly get that impression from reading any bike event application form. Riding safely and following traffic rules are far more important, yet not stressed as much.

Lastly, falling off a step ladder can cause head injury or death, but how many of us wear a helmet when cleaning out the rain gutters? Something to think about.

""Chainwheel"""

Anonymous's picture
Ron Thomson (not verified)

"""Lastly, falling off a step ladder can cause head injury or death, but how many of us wear a helmet when cleaning out the rain gutters? Something to think about. ""

It would seem to me that there are many more variables cycling the streets of NYC than climbing a ladder to clear a gutter."

Anonymous's picture
"Chainwheel" (not verified)
Variables?

"""It would seem to me that there are many more variables cycling the streets of NYC than climbing a ladder to clear a gutter.""

So, by that logic I take it you wouldn't wear a helmet when cycling on a country lane because there are fewer variables than in NYC?

""Chainwheel"""

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
well said

"""I wear a helmet because it MAY offer some protection. I don't put down those who choose not to wear one. What I object to, is the notion that helmets are the Number 1 factor in bicycle safety. One would certainly get that impression from reading any bike event application form."""

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)

"""Cycling IS dangerous, as is driving and crossing the street. That's why we have seatbelt laws, and ""walk/ don't walk"" signs.""

Do you truly believe that if you use your seatbelt in a car, and do not jaywalk while walking, you cannot be injured while doing those two activities?

Please note, at least one pedestrian death in NYC this month seems to have involved a pedestrian cross the street at a crosswalk *with the light* who was hit by a turning car.
"

Anonymous's picture
bill vojtech (not verified)

When governments are faced with cycling-related conflicts, how often do they act to make streets safer? And how often do they just enact helmet laws?
----------------
Or worse, ban cycling, as they have in South Hampton on Main Street. For our own good, since we don't know any better.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
life and logic

"""Spread out over many rides, this cost is neglible. Now, bear in mind that no matter how many rides you spread it over, the per-ride cost to you of getting killed or gravely injured because of not wearing a helmut is close to INFINITE. This is a silly debate.""

Do you actually use this sort of logic in making other decisions in your life? That because something has the potential, however remote, to kill you it must be mitigated against?

Do you actually take every protective measure you can conceive of that costs about only about $100 every few years to reduce an extremely remote chance of death?

I doubt you do, but if so I salute your consistency."

Anonymous's picture
rjb (not verified)
more costs

there is evidence to suggest that on very hot days, wearing a helmet can be more dangerous than going helmetless(more susceptible to heat stroke, etc.), and the previously-mentioned increased risk of spinal cord injury. also i read a study somewhere that people wearing helmets tend to take more risks (because they 'feel'safer).

i have been following john's comments with interest, and am glad to see there is a voice of reason out there. i agree with him completely, especially regarding mandatory helmet use as portraying cycling as an inherently dangerous activity, and the lack of the same logic applied to other potentially 'dangerous' activities in life - the reason seems to be, at least partly, that helmets (in the context of the cycling community in the US) have simply become socially acceptable and 'in'. it seems that this, as much as perceived danger, has to do with why people wear them on bikes and not in cars, for example. if this were not the case, why don't these same people wear masks to filter out the smog and ozone, which are clearly dangerous?

personally, i wear a helmet most of the time. i have crashed many times, hit my head with and without a helmet on, and broken a couple helmets in the process. on those occasions did they save my life or prevent serious injury? maybe. several years ago, my brother was doing 40mph(riding helmetless)down a hill when a car went through a stop sign and he went through the windshield - amazingly, no head injury. would he have had a spinal injury had he been wearing a helmet? i don't know.

i wear one because i figure if there's a chance it could help, why not wear it, if it's not too inconvenient, and (in the context of the cycling community in the US) i don't look like a complete d0rk!

i don't really care if other people choose to wear helmets or not. however, there does seem to be a lack of tolerance, which i've witnessed out on the road. on most days i do wear a helmet, but on those i don't, i don't need to be attacked by the holier-than-thou.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
another life saved!

"""several years ago, my brother was doing 40mph(riding helmetless)down a hill when a car went through a stop sign and he went through the windshield - amazingly, no head injury.""

Interesting experience -- thanks for your comments. I'm pretty certain that if your brother had been wearing a typical cycling helmet it would have been destroyed. And if we wanted to, we could say ""the helmet was crushed, therefore it saved his life."""

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

When I contemplate a known-to-be dangerous activity, you bet I do.

Usually, the work is done for me though, because I have already spent the $100 (or in reality, much more than that) by proxy. The money is priced into my car which has government-specified safety features that were costly to implement, or it is priced into my airline ticket, which takes into account the cost of leasing planes with decades of engineering research behing them and NTSB protocols.

With bikes, you're on your own, so you're better off doing the mental math.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)

"""When I contemplate a known-to-be dangerous activity, you bet I do.""

What activity is that?
"

Anonymous's picture
[email protected] (not verified)

About five years ago, when I first resumed cycling as an adult, I got a helmet to go with the bike. I thought it looked d*rky but I intellectually understood the rationale.

One dark and stormy night, I swerved across a metal plate and went down hard. My shoulder would need rehab, but I remember laughing -- just as helmet hit asphalt and split in half -- leaving gray matter safe and secure inside the orginal enclosure.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
"""helmets look dokry"""

I don't think so. I think part of the attraction of helmets among athletic/enthusiastic cyclist is that it demonstrates we are a part of a special tribe doing a special activity in a serious manner.

That's one reason I got a helmet when I was a kid, though I only realized this motivation in hindsight.

Anonymous's picture
David (not verified)
how about some evidence, some guy

"It is upsetting that ""some guy"" dominates this thread with grand statements without providing a shred of evidence to back him up.
During the over thirty years I have ridden I have fallen four times.
The last time I was going down the lasker hill in CP by myself after a rain. Luckily I have never hit my head but is that chance infinitesimal?
As a daily commuter I see cars constantly running red lights, turning without signaling, running stop signs and just generally ignoring traffic rules. Is the chance of getting hurt infinitesimal? Cycling is a great activity but there are risks. Some guy would like to say they are nill so he can feel better about not wearing a helmet but I think he is wrong.
In CT motorcyclists don't have to wear helmets but does that mean there is no risk motor biking in CT. My sister calls motorcyclists without helmets future organ donors because of the probability an accident will result in death. You are free not to wear a helmet while riding a bike but don't fool yourself into thinking the chance of an accident is infinitesimal and don't go around making statements without anything to back them up, saying there is no need to wear them."

Anonymous's picture
mike p (not verified)
"""to be in"" and motorcycle dissimilarity"

"""""the reason seems to be, at least partly, that helmets (in the context of the cycling community in the US) have simply become socially acceptable and 'in'. it seems that this, as much as perceived danger, has to do with why people wear them on bikes""""
almost all bicycle clubs require helmets on their rides,
almost all organized rides but non bike club rides ie MS rides,AIDS rides require that helmets be worn .
i wouldn't call it a "" to be in"" factor.

""My sister calls motorcyclists without helmets future organ donors because of the probability an accident will result in death.""
there are very few similarities between motorcycle crashing/helmet use/construction and bicycling crashing/ helmet use/construction. as a side note , I believe most motorcycle riders die of broken necks, with or without helmets. motorcycle deaths have been dramatically climbing the last couple years. this is both helmet law states and non helmet law states. This has nothing to do with bicycling though"

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
you've got things backwards

"
It's the responsiblity of people who say cycling is dangerous and who claim helmets can help prevent severe injury, to provide evidence.

That's the way logic works -- you should be promoting action in response to known problems, not speculation or irrational or undocumented fears and then question the people, like me, who question you.

""As a daily commuter I see cars constantly running red lights, turning without signaling, running stop signs and just generally ignoring traffic rules.""

Do you not think those things threaten you when walking? Or even when driving or travelling in a car? What is so special about cycling that makes a helmet necessary, but not in those other activities? Someone was killed yesterday in NYC crossing the street totally legally.)

""Is the chance of getting hurt infinitesimal? Cycling is a great activity but there are risks. ""

There are some risks to everything.

""Some guy would like to say they are nill so he can feel better about not wearing a helmet but I think he is wrong.""

I said they are remote, not nil. And I did provide some ""shred"" of evidence. In NYC, 120,000 people riding per day with an approximate annual death rate of 10 to 15 per year.

Do you have *any* concrete information on injury or death rates in cycling? If not, you would do well to shut up about it.

""My sister calls motorcyclists without helmets future organ donors because of the probability an accident will result in death.""

Is your sister a statistition with access to good information? If not, who cares what she says?

"

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
"""Eating an avocado each day can reduce the severity of tubercu

"Therefore, we should ""Always eat avocados""

If someone told me these statements, I'd think of a series of questions to help evaluate whether I should start eating more avocados.

First, is it true that eating avocados daily can reduce the severity of tuberculosis? What's the evidence? Is it anecdotal (OK but not great) or more substantial?

Second, is tuberculosis a significant threat? That is, what is the likelihood of getting the disease and how debilitating or deadly is it?

Third, are there more effective ways to reduce the severity of tuberculosis than avocados? Either cheaper, or more effective, or things that might not only fight TB but also help with other health problems?

Fourth, rather than just reducing the *severity* of tuberculosis, are there simple ways to reduce the odds of *catching* the disease in the first place?

Fifth, are there other threats to health that are more significant than tuberculosis that could be mitigated with simpler or cheaper means than avocados?

Sixth, do I like avocados?

In practice it's quite likley that I wouldn't be able to get a clear answer for all these questions. Instead I might get answers like ""It's not certain avocados help, but they probably do"" and ""Avocados are a healthful food in general"" and ""They taste good.""

In such a case I probably would eat them from time to time -- it probably can't hurt and it's easy and maybe they'd help my health.

But it'd be very irrational to:
1. denounce anyone who doubted using avocados to fight TB,
2. say it's silly not to eat them everyday
3. worry profoundly about going a day without an avocado
3. say ""if you don't eat it, you're really playing with fire and we should be surprised if you die
4 say ""if I hadn't been eating avocados daily I'd probably be dead by now
5. ask someone who has tuberculosis ""have you been eating an avocado every day?""

PS -- I don't mean to make light of tuberculosis; it is a serious disease and sadly not rare in NYC and other parts of the world. I know of at least two people who have had it. And I do eat avocados sometimes. I like them and they're probably good for me."

Anonymous's picture
bill vojtech (not verified)
Life is inherently risky...

Nobody gets out alive.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
I'm going to die! I'm going to die!

Yes. Someday.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)
"""That's the way logic works"""

"Some guy,

You say that based on how logic works, the onus is to prove that helmuts are useful (above their costs) rather that they aren't. Actually, I would dispute this, although as a logical person I understand where you're coming from.

The notion that helmuts are an effective piece of safety equipment for frequent fitness cyclists or those who ride in traffic is an example of what we call ""common sense."" If you want evidence of that, just take a random poll of 10 objective-minded folks.

Of course, common sense has many times been shown to be wrong. That said, the onus of proof has always been to show that the common sense is wrong. Usually by proving that the opposite is right, or by showing no effect in good, controlled, repeatable studies.

The reason for this situation is that we have to rely on common sense for 99.9% majority of our decisions. We don't have the time or ability to go about ""proving"" every little thing - certainly not before we reach the point where we're forced among ourselves to come to some agreement on norms or standards.

(We might have had a similar debate on handheld cell phone use in cars, which was banned based on common sense notions [on what you might call an arbitrary, pick-and-choose basis] prior to studies coming out showing that it is not significantly more dangerous than talking using an earpiece.)

So generally, just saying that something regarded as common sense hasn't been exhaustively proven isn't good enough. You don't have to prove common sense - you have to ""unprove"" it.

Maybe one day someone will demonstrate convincingly that helmuts are actually statistically ineffective at reducing the incidence of serious head injuries, controlling for all other influences and the differences in habits and environment between helmut-wearers and non-helmut wearers. I would welcome that study, although I would agree with you that some people probably have an attachment to helmuts that runs deeper than logic.. C'est la vie."

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)
helmets, cellphones

"The studies I've read (several) have indicated that driving while talking on a cell phone, handheld or otherwise, is as dangerous, if not more so than drunk driving. For instance, in NJ driving related fatalities from distracted driving are 4xs greater each year than that from drunk driving. The Discovery channel TV show Mythbusters did a segment on such confirming such empirical and statistical studies plausibility. Here's one cited as far back as 1997:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/cars/cellphones.html

By the way, it's spelled:

helmet

"

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Okay, already! Bad spelling habits die hard :-)

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)

While I have my share of misspellings, this one is the subject matter of the thread, which makes it rather hard to overlook. Sorry to be so nit picky.

Anonymous's picture
Helmut Von Rilkensberg (not verified)
"""By the way, it's spelled: helmet"""

Not it is not. I know how to spell my own name, and it's H-e-l-m-u-t.

Anonymous's picture
David (not verified)
some fool

There are studies showing that Helmets prevent some head injuries. Funny you should tell me to shut up, I think you should use this thread to continue spouting your baseless assumptions Ad nauseam as you seem to be doing without any prompting and I will start to ignore your ignorance.

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)

"""There are studies showing that Helmets prevent some head injuries.""

Well, I've also said helmets prevent head injuries -- minor injuries like cuts and perhaps concussions. Do tyr to read more carefully.

But on the studies I'll assume you are talking about preventing *serious injuries* or death (otherwise you'd be in agreement with me). So I have to ask, which studies? I gave a link that listed a variety of studies which went into the strengts and weaknesses of each. The ones that suggested helmets reduce serious injuries and deaths seem quite flawed.

So I ask again -- which ones? Can you answer that, or will you just say ""some studies"" and leave it at that?

""I think you should use this thread to continue spouting your baseless assumptions""

The *assumption* is that helmets are effective in preventing serious injuries or death. That's positive statement that requires evidence. Doubting as assertion doesn't require evidence.

The second *assumption* is that cycling is more dangerous to one's head than other activities, and therefore it makes more sense to require helmets while cycling than in those other activities.

Again -- your belief that cycling is especialy dangerous requires some sort of back up. Despite mere skepticism not needing backup, I've provided a little data on deaths in cycling in NYC. DO you have any data or links to good information.

Or are you just spouting off assumptions?"

Anonymous's picture
mike p (not verified)
not concussions

"from a very pro bicycle helmet site.
http://www.helmets.org/up0205a.htm
""Most helmets, including all bicycle helmets on the market, are designed to reduce catastrophic injuries, not to prevent concussions. Doctors define concussion in various ways, but if an impact knocks you out or makes you lose memory for a few seconds, that's a concussion. Catastrophic injury is permanent or semi-permanent brain injury. Although the lines between them are blurred, a bike helmet is designed to keep g forces below 300 in a crash, while a concussion helmet would have to keep them below about 85 g. Our assumption has been that you will survive a concussion, but not the catastrophic injury."""

Anonymous's picture
some guy (not verified)
BHSI

There's some interesting stuff in that site -- some thought-provoking stuff and some stuff that leads to more questions.

Anonymous's picture
John W (not verified)
Drop this ridiculous conversation

"To the author of this ludicrous stream of ""rational"" arguments about the costs/benefits of wearing a helmet (I hear in the blogging world such folks are referred to as trolls), I feel like this has gone on rather long enough. If you object so strongly to the idea of cleaning and/or looking after your helmet (? please explain what exactly is involved in ""looking after"" one's helmet? Is it a difficult project for you? I simply put mine on when I go out riding, and set it down beside my bike when I get home - it never bothers me or keeps me up nights), by all means - get rid of it, and let your flowing hair whip through the wind.

But please leave the rest of us - those who choose to wear helmets based on strong evidence that shows that the impact of head and pavement are likely to cause significantly greater injury than the impact of head encased in strong, padded, reinforced plastic and pavement - alone. Many cylists are happy with our helmets and those that aren't are free to do as they please.

Your arguments about how we should wear helmets while engaging in other activities, such as sitting in the back of cabs, are ridiculous. Why not restrict this rational discussion to whether or not they make a difference to cyclists, who often ride at relatively high speeds in open air, in close proximity to hard pavement and unprotected by 2,000+ pounds of metal as one is in the back of a cab.

According to the recently released report from the NYC Dept of Transportation, 97% of cycling fatalities in the city from 1996-2003 were individuals who were not wearing helmets. 74% of those fatalities involved head injuries. The link is below.

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report...

Seems like a relatively clear causal link here, but if you choose to disagree, by all means do so. But leave everyone else out of it.

Enjoy your ride!"

Anonymous's picture
mike p (not verified)
betcha that reply puts it over 100 posts

i don't think he is a troll, he put out some useful links and websites. If you don't want to read them, fine but to think everybody shares your opinion is a bit trollish.
As far as the NYC DOT study you mention, the cycling fatalities in NYC the last 2 years were all the result of motor vehicle involvement. There was one fatality where someone crashed into a post minus helmet on a bike way near the verrazano, not sure if that was the last two years. That is the only non motor vehicle related death that comes to mind.
remember of the 200 plus peds killed every year 100 % were not wearing helmets.

Anonymous's picture
chris o (not verified)

I agree - we should drop this ridiculous conversation. But first let me get in my statement of beliefs and after that no one else has a right to keep the conversation going. Or I have a better idea - if you agree with me that this thread should end, you can post a message stating so. (And while you are at it, you may want to comment on anything in the thread so far.)

cycling trips