5 ms·

Can you explain what you mean by "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" and how this removes the need for a helmet?

by nathanb 12y ago

jepper 12y ago
In the Netherlands we have dedicated cycling lanes along larger roads and car drivers that are comfortable with cyclists. Almost everbody cycles, nobody wears helmets. And we haven't got a raised head injury mortality or paralysis rate because of bike injuries. I've never had an injury and probably traveled more kilometers by bike than any other means of transportation. I do wear a helmet while road biking but that's a whole different topic.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Look here, and search for "Netherlands" for the full horror storey of 'safe' bicycle infrastructure: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
  - dalke 12y ago
    I don't see a horror story. Could you explain it? In the Netherlands, 1/4 of all trips, and 8% of all distances traveled, are by bicycle, so the numbers reported there are hard to compare to other countries. What level of fatalities and head injuries would count as "not a horror story" to you? What level of fatalities by running or jogging would count as "not a horror story" to you? (BTW, the statistics only list "head/brain injury". I presumed that a scratch on the chin would count as a head injury. Also, the text under "And more from the same paper" does not exist in the referenced paper. The text says the 'estimates are partly based on research carried out in countries like the United States and Australia', so don't really reflect the infrastructure.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      The first paragraph in the Netherlands section: "67,000 casualties of cycling crashes are treated at a first-aid department (Source: Injury Information System LIS), 8,000 cyclists are admitted to hospital (Source: National Medical Registration LMR), and 190 people die as a consequence of a cycling crash (Source Statistics Netherlands – Unnatural deaths). Of the seriously injured bicycle casualties2 admitted to hospital, a third were diagnosed with head or brain injuries (32%). " We can assume 'seriously injured' does not include scratched chins.
      - dalke 12y ago
        I read those numbers. My point is that I don't know how to interpret those numbers. The Netherlands has a cheaper health care than the US. Do people go to the first-aid department for minor problems more often than they do in the US? For example, in college I cut my figure once while cutting a loaf of bread with a hard crust. I was on the campus medical plan. I walked to the campus medical center and got a single stitch. Had I had to drive some place, and pay $100 in co-pay, then I would have waited longer and perhaps not gotten it. The text says "Of the cyclists with serious injury who are admitted to hospital following a crash with motorized traffic, almost half (47%) are diagnosed with head/brain injury". It doesn't say that they only have a head/brain injury. Could be a broken collarbone and facial injury? The relevant Table 1 in the paper says "Annual number of cyclists admitted to hospital with head/brain injuries as main or second diagnosis", emphasis mine. So no, we cannot, based on the presented data, assume that the head/brain injury is the serious injury. In the US in 2012, 4,743 pedestrians and 726 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm . Do those raw numbers mean that bikes are safer than walking, in case of a car crash? Certainly not. It needs to be scaled by amount of time that people are on a bike, vs. walking. More people walk in the US than cycle. "There are 127 million walking trips and nine million bike trips in the U.S. every day (2009 NHTS)." http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_general.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_general.cfm . While in the Netherlands, some 25% of trips are by bike, and 20% by foot, and 8% of all distances are covered by bike. See http://books.google.com/books?id=apGsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=Statistics+Netherlands+%E2%80%93+Unnatural+deaths&source=bl&ots=8CUjoNdcDc&sig=dShoZayOxbukd1RMmCBziHCaXEE&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=5sxrVOKXBabmyQPwt4KYDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Statistics%20Netherlands%20%E2%80%93%20Unnatural%20deaths&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=apGsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&lpg=P... . Tell me how to combine all that data to get a horror story. Because it's proved to be too complicated for me to figure it out based on what I can see. My own experience in the Netherlands is that biking there is a joy. It feels very safe compared to biking in the US.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        You are kidding, right? What non-serious brain injury do you suppose they are diagnosing?
dalke 12y ago
"Perfectly safe" is of course impossible. It should be read as "as safe as walking" or, more realistically, "as safe as running." (Wearing a helmet while running, or while driving, may also be safer than not.) For a safe infrastructure, see how Amsterdam and Copenhagen have bike lines which are independent of traffic and of pedestrians, including it own bridges and overpasses. See also how routes are arranged so that cycle and pedestrian routes are more direct than car routes, how bikes have right-of-way over cars, and how limited speed limits and narrow roads keep cars from going fast in roads which are shared with cycles. Also, it wasn't only "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" but also "and you're never going faster than 20 km/h". That's a 3 minute km or 5 minute mile, which is slower than many people can sprint, and slower than the fastest marathon paces. It's hard to understand why cyclists, on their own paths, need a helmet when runners who might pass them do not.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  I think its because runners have their feet under them, and can respond in some emergencies. Falling off a bike almost always ends up head-first, with arms outstretched to brace yourself (broken collar-bone from the impact) or not (broken helmet/head).
  - dalke 12y ago
    Cyclists can also respond in some emergencies, including some that aren't available to joggers. For example, I found that two wheels + two feet made it possible to travel on an icy road where two feet alone felt very dangerous. Cyclists also very rarely get a sprained ankle. I don't find where "falling off a bike almost always ends up head-first." My own injuries seem more of the slip on an icy or wet patch and fall on my side variety. Looking around, according to http://books.google.com/books?id=cxn2dKfCg1AC&lpg=PA138&ots=7tFEvEPrNy&dq=bicycle%20accident%20injuries%20%22broken%20bone%22%20head%20abrasion&hl=sv&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=crash%20relaed%20injuries&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cxn2dKfCg1AC&lpg=PA138&ots=... "gravel rash" on the hips, knees, butt, and elbows is the most common injury. Bruising, cuts, and breaks (collarbone, ribs, and wrists, in that order) are relatively less common. I don't get a sense that head-first events top the list.

Can you explain what you mean by "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" and how this removes the need for a helmet?

by nathanb 12y ago

Can you explain what you mean by "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" and how this removes the need for a helmet?

In the Netherlands we have dedicated cycling lanes along larger roads and car drivers that are comfortable with cyclists. Almost everbody cycles, nobody wears helmets. And we haven't got a raised head injury mortality or paralysis rate because of bike injuries. I've never had an injury and probably traveled more kilometers by bike than any other means of transportation. I do wear a helmet while road biking but that's a whole different topic.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Look here, and search for "Netherlands" for the full horror storey of 'safe' bicycle infrastructure: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
- dalke 12y ago
  I don't see a horror story. Could you explain it? In the Netherlands, 1/4 of all trips, and 8% of all distances traveled, are by bicycle, so the numbers reported there are hard to compare to other countries. What level of fatalities and head injuries would count as "not a horror story" to you? What level of fatalities by running or jogging would count as "not a horror story" to you? (BTW, the statistics only list "head/brain injury". I presumed that a scratch on the chin would count as a head injury. Also, the text under "And more from the same paper" does not exist in the referenced paper. The text says the 'estimates are partly based on research carried out in countries like the United States and Australia', so don't really reflect the infrastructure.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    The first paragraph in the Netherlands section: "67,000 casualties of cycling crashes are treated at a first-aid department (Source: Injury Information System LIS), 8,000 cyclists are admitted to hospital (Source: National Medical Registration LMR), and 190 people die as a consequence of a cycling crash (Source Statistics Netherlands – Unnatural deaths). Of the seriously injured bicycle casualties2 admitted to hospital, a third were diagnosed with head or brain injuries (32%). " We can assume 'seriously injured' does not include scratched chins.
    - dalke 12y ago
      I read those numbers. My point is that I don't know how to interpret those numbers. The Netherlands has a cheaper health care than the US. Do people go to the first-aid department for minor problems more often than they do in the US? For example, in college I cut my figure once while cutting a loaf of bread with a hard crust. I was on the campus medical plan. I walked to the campus medical center and got a single stitch. Had I had to drive some place, and pay $100 in co-pay, then I would have waited longer and perhaps not gotten it. The text says "Of the cyclists with serious injury who are admitted to hospital following a crash with motorized traffic, almost half (47%) are diagnosed with head/brain injury". It doesn't say that they only have a head/brain injury. Could be a broken collarbone and facial injury? The relevant Table 1 in the paper says "Annual number of cyclists admitted to hospital with head/brain injuries as main or second diagnosis", emphasis mine. So no, we cannot, based on the presented data, assume that the head/brain injury is the serious injury. In the US in 2012, 4,743 pedestrians and 726 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm . Do those raw numbers mean that bikes are safer than walking, in case of a car crash? Certainly not. It needs to be scaled by amount of time that people are on a bike, vs. walking. More people walk in the US than cycle. "There are 127 million walking trips and nine million bike trips in the U.S. every day (2009 NHTS)." http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_general.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_general.cfm . While in the Netherlands, some 25% of trips are by bike, and 20% by foot, and 8% of all distances are covered by bike. See http://books.google.com/books?id=apGsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=Statistics+Netherlands+%E2%80%93+Unnatural+deaths&source=bl&ots=8CUjoNdcDc&sig=dShoZayOxbukd1RMmCBziHCaXEE&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=5sxrVOKXBabmyQPwt4KYDQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Statistics%20Netherlands%20%E2%80%93%20Unnatural%20deaths&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=apGsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA352&lpg=P... . Tell me how to combine all that data to get a horror story. Because it's proved to be too complicated for me to figure it out based on what I can see. My own experience in the Netherlands is that biking there is a joy. It feels very safe compared to biking in the US.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        You are kidding, right? What non-serious brain injury do you suppose they are diagnosing?

dalke 12y ago

"Perfectly safe" is of course impossible. It should be read as "as safe as walking" or, more realistically, "as safe as running." (Wearing a helmet while running, or while driving, may also be safer than not.) For a safe infrastructure, see how Amsterdam and Copenhagen have bike lines which are independent of traffic and of pedestrians, including it own bridges and overpasses. See also how routes are arranged so that cycle and pedestrian routes are more direct than car routes, how bikes have right-of-way over cars, and how limited speed limits and narrow roads keep cars from going fast in roads which are shared with cycles. Also, it wasn't only "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" but also "and you're never going faster than 20 km/h". That's a 3 minute km or 5 minute mile, which is slower than many people can sprint, and slower than the fastest marathon paces. It's hard to understand why cyclists, on their own paths, need a helmet when runners who might pass them do not.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I think its because runners have their feet under them, and can respond in some emergencies. Falling off a bike almost always ends up head-first, with arms outstretched to brace yourself (broken collar-bone from the impact) or not (broken helmet/head).
- dalke 12y ago
  Cyclists can also respond in some emergencies, including some that aren't available to joggers. For example, I found that two wheels + two feet made it possible to travel on an icy road where two feet alone felt very dangerous. Cyclists also very rarely get a sprained ankle. I don't find where "falling off a bike almost always ends up head-first." My own injuries seem more of the slip on an icy or wet patch and fall on my side variety. Looking around, according to http://books.google.com/books?id=cxn2dKfCg1AC&lpg=PA138&ots=7tFEvEPrNy&dq=bicycle%20accident%20injuries%20%22broken%20bone%22%20head%20abrasion&hl=sv&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=crash%20relaed%20injuries&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cxn2dKfCg1AC&lpg=PA138&ots=... "gravel rash" on the hips, knees, butt, and elbows is the most common injury. Bruising, cuts, and breaks (collarbone, ribs, and wrists, in that order) are relatively less common. I don't get a sense that head-first events top the list.