4 ms·

"it is studied" Source please? This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't

"it is studied" Source please? This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city. Cars don't give a fuck about us.

andrenotgiant 4y ago
https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-helmet-wearing-is-associated-with-closer-overtaking-by-dr https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he...
- gus_massa 4y ago
  From the abstract: > The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum. Looking at the graph in figure 1, "one-fifth of a standard" looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant. IIUC all the analysis is based on 2355 data gathered by Walker riding a bike himself a few years ago between two cities. It's not a mix of data from different persons or a mix of city and countryside rides. The most interesting part is that Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Yes, but you're missing that overtaking events is just one of the metrics in question. You're right that perhaps it is a big difference between cyclists, my guess would be the number of cars matters more than the number of cyclists. The study has been replicated elsewhere. > Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one. Uh, no? The 8.5 cm result has been consistent. At the margin, these things make a difference, especially given that collisions are rare as a fraction for rides taken.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Indeed the researcher was his own test subject.
whimsicalism 4y ago
https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k To be clear, I am not saying that it is safer to ride without a helmet, just an interesting study of behavior. I get that you know people who are harmed by cars (as do I), but your appeal to pathos & anecdote should not have a bearing here.
logifail 4y ago
> This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city. When I was at uni and was cycling to a 10am lecture, a small van pulled out of a side road across my path. I was in a cycle lane and had right of way. He simply didn't look in my direction until he had already started to pull out. I was unable to stop or avoid him, so hit the front of his van head on, was briefly airborne, and landed on the road on the other side. Miraculously only scuffs and bruises, although my bike was a write-off. At that point I started wearing a helmet(!!!) The next year, one of my friends went over the handlebars of her bike during a collision, except she landed head-first on the road, thankfully she was wearing a helmet. The helmet was split, she walked away with nothing other than mild concussion. Another friend and I walked out to rescue her bike later from the accident location, it also was a write-off. Once you've seen a bike accident up-close there is simply no justification for not wearing a helmet. Even if you haven't seen an accident, wear a helmet!
littlestymaar 4y ago
Wikipedia links to this study[1] which found a difference of about 8,5cm in average, which sounds far from significant from a safety perspective (and again according to Wikipedia this study has been disputed). [1] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  As a biker who understands marginal thinking, 8.5 cm could absolutely be significant from a safety perspective. The study is disputed by one researcher, the paper I linked contains a rebuttal and I think it is convincing.

andrenotgiant 4y ago

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-helmet-wearing-is-associated-with-closer-overtaking-by-dr https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he...

gus_massa 4y ago
From the abstract: > The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum. Looking at the graph in figure 1, "one-fifth of a standard" looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant. IIUC all the analysis is based on 2355 data gathered by Walker riding a bike himself a few years ago between two cities. It's not a mix of data from different persons or a mix of city and countryside rides. The most interesting part is that Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, but you're missing that overtaking events is just one of the metrics in question. You're right that perhaps it is a big difference between cyclists, my guess would be the number of cars matters more than the number of cyclists. The study has been replicated elsewhere. > Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one. Uh, no? The 8.5 cm result has been consistent. At the margin, these things make a difference, especially given that collisions are rare as a fraction for rides taken.
- analog31 4y ago
  Indeed the researcher was his own test subject.

whimsicalism 4y ago

https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k To be clear, I am not saying that it is safer to ride without a helmet, just an interesting study of behavior. I get that you know people who are harmed by cars (as do I), but your appeal to pathos & anecdote should not have a bearing here.

logifail 4y ago

> This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city. When I was at uni and was cycling to a 10am lecture, a small van pulled out of a side road across my path. I was in a cycle lane and had right of way. He simply didn't look in my direction until he had already started to pull out. I was unable to stop or avoid him, so hit the front of his van head on, was briefly airborne, and landed on the road on the other side. Miraculously only scuffs and bruises, although my bike was a write-off. At that point I started wearing a helmet(!!!) The next year, one of my friends went over the handlebars of her bike during a collision, except she landed head-first on the road, thankfully she was wearing a helmet. The helmet was split, she walked away with nothing other than mild concussion. Another friend and I walked out to rescue her bike later from the accident location, it also was a write-off. Once you've seen a bike accident up-close there is simply no justification for not wearing a helmet. Even if you haven't seen an accident, wear a helmet!

littlestymaar 4y ago

Wikipedia links to this study[1] which found a difference of about 8,5cm in average, which sounds far from significant from a safety perspective (and again according to Wikipedia this study has been disputed). [1] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010

whimsicalism 4y ago
As a biker who understands marginal thinking, 8.5 cm could absolutely be significant from a safety perspective. The study is disputed by one researcher, the paper I linked contains a rebuttal and I think it is convincing.