http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/study-finds-cyclists-disobey-traffic-laws/
found this article, thought it was interesting, and made some good points.
Someone actually needed a study to figure that out? I’m actually surprised the numbers for burned traffic lights and whatnot are so low.
A lot of those numbers/stats aren’t especially relevant without context either. Cycling is actually extremely safe when compared with the whole package of NIH casualty statistics.
There is an interesting page I came across that takes a look at helmet vs injury statistics and actually shows that per cycling hours in a population helmets don’t actually reduce the number of serious injuries or fatalities. Not that I’d ever advocate not wearing a helmet but the idea that wearing hellmets automatically makes everything better (which is what this article suggests) is apparently wrong.
There are a few interesting studies and experiments that show that increasing the quantity of signalization (lights, signs) and compartmentalization (dedicated lanes etc) actually increases the number of accidents, not the other way around.
I’ll try to find links to all this stuff when I have more time.
I think probably we can all agree that the best way to reduce cyclist deaths/injuries in city traffic is to reduce the number of cars out there running into us. That’s my vote.
And I don’t care if some studies say that cars drive a few inches closer to me when I’m wearing a helmet (and yes, I’ve read that study), when I get hit, and mind you it really is just a matter of time, I would rather walk away from it with a concussion than have to get spoon fed by my mother for the rest of my life.
Most of those statistics apply only in the more academic discussion of whether or not to pass helmet wearing legislation. The statistics are pretty clear in that regards - neither legislating nor the increase in helmet wearing reduce the number of serious head injuries per cycling hour.
My biggest gripe against helmets is that to make them actually wearable for any sort of riding they’ve compromised their ability to actually protect you from much. There is a pretty narrow band of impact energies and impulses for which a helmet would reduce an otherwise fatal or debilitating injury to something more mild. Its an inherent limitation of the design. They do help (especially when impacting an edge or point), just not all that much.
Again I’d never advocate not wearing a helmet because they do work, I just think its important to understand the limitations of your equipment. Cycling helmets simply are not a robust safety feature like seat belts and airbags.
well there’s our solution: bicycles with seatbelts and airbags!
10 000$
And you may earn a little respect among the car’s ecause you look more like one. There are so many issue’s with bikes vs cars vs pedestriens that I could spend the day talking about it.
A lot of the thing’s that are ment to be “protective” messures are simply there to make it possible to walk out of certain situations. I don’t think most bicycle helments are made for people who fly by at over 50 km/h on a bicycle. At that speed a crash will pretty much rip you appart (yes I’ve seen someone have an accident around that speed, my sister fell at 40km/h when a cyclist nudged her back wheel when drafting).
I had an accident this year without a helmet because I was “just going to the store” and regret it, Smashed my glass’s walked around like I was beat up and was concused with some heavy headaches for about 3 - 4 day’s.
If I had my helmet it may have been diffrent, and I was riding under 20 km/h
Some touring motorbikes already come with airbags and then there is this:
Now whats the cost?
I recal going to ski-velo in the magog area and people where asking for a “normal bike” after seeing the 1000+ $ price tags. My point, people are cheap and often won’t pay the price to have something that will save there lives or change the out come from fatal to minor.
Next up estetics, if it doesn’t look good, they wont want to ride or wear it.
Edit:
That airbag thing is pretty cool, I think it seems to protect more the neck and upper body more then anything else. Then again I find the neck has always been the least protectide part in any sport. I guess people haven’t had enough whipe lash affects where people break there necks to look into it :roll:
most head injuries result from your head bobbing around more or less freely on your neck and smacking into things, the collar design is meant to prevent your head from hitting the ground in the first place.
The biggest mistake in protection gear is to design solely for the impact, and not for controlling the dynamics of how it happened. Hence why hellmets suck but airbags and belts work so well (compartively).
Early adopters in luxury items usually pave the way for it to appear generally since what costs a lot is the R&D and not the actual technology once mass produced. Airbags, cages with crumple zones, etc are all standard on cars and used to be luxury only items 10-20 years ago.
Good old R&D!
Now that you make me think of it, if you can get those rich kids with aero gear to buy some by confincing them that they will be safer and faster then the competition the prices could drop 
We’ll see, I find cycling as a whole has not changed that much other then making lighter bicycles which are claimed to be strong, Lighter wheels, Lighter Helmets.
I think they still lack the security mesures… but I still encourage to use whats out there.
The fact that people have been saved by helmets should be enough to convince you of their value. And people who don’t wear them don’t ride more safely.
I’m always surprised by how frequently discussions like this come up among cyclists. If you’re going to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, you could choose a better arena for it than the safety benefits of helmets. If it turns out you’re wrong, you’re screwed (i.e., paralyzed.)
well, like Jerry Seinfield once said, when your falling from 10,000 ft off a plane, the helmet is using YOU as protection… we dont really ride as intense as planes, but you get the point… going to fast in a city with lots of traffic is not very good in the first place, but helmets will have lots to do with safety… if a car runs into you, well, helmets might not be as good anymore (once again, they might be using u as protection)… maybe its bc im new to biking in montreal, but i usually go somewhat slow and even slower in intersections when on big avenues…a rule of thumbs for me is, always assume that the other driver didnt see me
Haha remember when people also believed you could safely be thrown from a car crash and that seatbelts didn’t make a difference?
Yeah I’m with most of us on this one. I had a crash last week. I got thrown right off the front of my bike. I landed on my shoulder and right temple. I was wearing my helmet. I got up and walked my bike home.
I can imagine epic crashes where helmets won’t do much for you. But I’m sure if I wasn’t wearing a helmet this time I’d be concussed pretty fierce.
We all wear helmets though anyways, right?
yes we do and should wear helmets.
It’s best to keep in mind that a safty tool or equipment is used to reduce the damage of an accident as much as possible. Though it does not cover all incidents as some things are done to an intensity that the helmet is not design for.
please, just wear a helmet. i only posted this because it talks about how a lot of cyclists disobey traffic laws, and how it can cause more accidents. A lot of people talk about how we hate cars when we ride (including me) but at the same time we also aren’t necessarily being as safe as we should/ could. To summarize; Good idea, wearing a helmet and following traffic laws. Bad idea riding the wrong way down a one way street, weaving in and out of cars, and running red lights. (anyone remember good idea, bad idea from animaniacs or was that just a show in the states?)
My biggest problem is that the science and engineering that goes into helmet design (and all protective equipment for that matter) is so incredibly all over the place.
You’ve got “experts” advocating blanket changes in material selection, casing design, etc based on a flawed understanding of how protective layering actually protects against shock loading (any time I hear people talk about energy absorption for shockwaves I just about want to scream). Hell most of these people can’t even get their impact terminology straight in the first place.
Then you’ve got a certification/testing system based around the idea that most crashes dump about the same energy as a stationary fall from standing - and the anvil tests are thus pretty silly and IMO not representative of any of the times I’ve plowed into stuff.
Its really not that hard to set up a dummy on a bike rigged with accelerometers and plow it into various obstacles instead of feeling ok with the absurd dropping of foam heads onto avils. They use dummies for blast protection studies as the standard.
Then you’ve got some truely scary studies (Andersson, T., Larsson, P. and Sandberg) which looked at a more realistic case where a cyclist going about 34 km/h falls on his side and slides (sound familiar?) and found that soft shell helmets have a huge coefficient of friction compared to hard shells or bare skin and torsionally load the neck an order of magnitude beyond the acceptable limit - moral of that story: DO NOT wear a soft shell that does not have a hard outer resin coating.
Maybe I’m just cranky and ranty because this sort of stuff hits close to home work wise but I just feel that this issue is so massively politically minded and tainted by some bad engineering - somewhere along the way in this whole issue people forgot its about designing the best possible, wearable protection system.
Yeah, I think you’re right. You are just cranky and ranty.
Jason, I’d hire you to build me a bicycle 
You seem to have this whole safty concern close to your heart! good job, ranty but good job all the same.
Now where do I fax the ideas :twisted: