Manners/Social Conventions You Don't Follow

[HHW]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No. But there isn't nearly as much difference between the two as people seem to think. And when it comes to the incidence of head injuries suffered by pedestrians vs cyclists, there is even less difference. It's not a matter of one being save, and the other not safe. It's a matter of degrees. Children do suffer serious and fatal head injuries in cars accidents, and as pedestrians. Some would undoubtedly be prevented by helmets. By choosing not to put a helmet kids every time they get in a car or go for a walk, you a making a decision that puts them at greater risk.

I would be very interested to see these statistics. I would want to confirm that this is adjusted for age group and frequency of activity. Until I do, I will call BS.

I don't doubt that certain age groups (very young children and seniors) have a relatively high incidence of injuries through falls while walking. However, I am skeptical that able-bodies adults are about as likely to suffer a serious head injury per minute spent walking vs per minute spent biking.

Anecdotally, I ride my road bike a lot, on both pathways and city streets. Over the years I have had two falls, caused by gravel and ice respectively. Nothing too serious, I landed on my shoulder and rolled, but both times my head hit the pavement hard enough to split the helmet. Falling off a bike is fundamentally different from falling while walking or running, as you cannot brace yourself in the same way.

I also am paid for what is inside my head instead of what is on the outside. Thus, to me personally, not wearing a helmet is asinine. I would much rather significantly reduce risk of a head injury rather than having nicely coifed hair when I get to where I'm going. And, yes, I would like to teach my 11-year old son to also have this attitude.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Are we thinking of the same Canadian Tire? That place is a glorified Dollar store. Anything that isn't a name brand is destined to self-destruct within 4 months. Tools or otherwise.

I'm not alone on this

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...02763&page=162

[polak]

Originally Posted by Slava

What if you go for a beer with just one other person and they want to do it? I do that with my friends when we go out sometimes and that would be incredibly awkward and weird not to do it. For example a trip with a friend and you sit down for that first beer, you wouldn't raise your glass?

Also what do you mean "its not my thing"? That just seems weird. When someone says "I don't really enjoy hiking, its not my thing." I might disagree, but I get it. It could be a long day of walking or whatever. Here though you're taking literally two seconds and clinking glasses. Is that really anybody's "thing"?

This thread is hilarious.

I have to echo this.

Not cheersing is such a weird thing to have a stance on. It has zero effect on you and it avoids a very awkward moment should someone ask you to cheers.

If I went to cheers some one and they just said "no" I'd instantly think they were a dick. I mean... why not?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Here are the Dutch statistics.

Sorry, I couldn't find the exact comparable for Canadian cycling. However, here's a comparison between injury rates in the Netherlands, and in Australia (where helmets are mandatory for everyone). Some highlights:

• * In the Netherlands from 2003/07, an average 8,000 cyclists were admitted to hospital each year, of whom 2,150 (or 26.85 per cent) suffered head injuries.
  
  * In Australia in 2005/06, 4,370 cyclists suffered serious injury, of which 1,122 (or 25.67 per cent) were serious head injuries.
  
  * (The Netherlands has 22 million people to Australia's 16.6 million, or 1.33 times as many people).
  
  * The Netherlands has a 1.8% greater proportion of cyclist head injuries than does Australia.
  
  * On average, every Dutch person cycles 2.5km every day and 93% of the population rides a bike at least once a week. Australians cycle about 0.1km every day.
  

I did find this second-hand reference to helmet use and injury rates among Dutch cyclists.

But among Holland's millions of bikers, helmets are almost nonexistent—and resistance to them is fierce. Only 0.1% of Dutch bikers wear helmets, in contrast to 15% in nearby Sweden and 38% in the U.S., according to the British cycling organization CTC...

...Dutch riders have the world's lowest accident rate per mile, according to the CTC, and some studies suggest they also have a low rate of head trauma. Some skeptics even warn that headgear could unintentionally undermine public health. The logic here is that helmets make biking appear dangerous, and that could scare potential riders away, thus reducing the exercise they get.

However, the Netherlands Infrastructure Minister has called for helmets to be mandatory for children and the elderly, but not other cyclists.

Scientists writing in the British Medical Journal say there is no conclusive evidence one way or another about the public health benefits of wearing helmets while cycling.

“The current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research,” and, “we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length.”

A Canadian study that independent analysts say is the statistically soundest on the subjects, found compulsory cycle helmet laws have had "minimal" effect on number of cycling head injury hospital admissions.

In all, hospital admissions data for 66,716 cycling related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 were studied. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head injuries among young people fell by 54.0 per cent in provinces that have helmet legislation, compared to 33.1 per cent in those without such laws.

Among adults, in provinces where helmets are required by law, the rate fell by 26.0 per cent, but stayed constant in provinces that have no compulsory helmet legislation.

However, the authors say, “After taking baseline trends into consideration… we were unable to detect an independent effect of legislation on the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries.”

Danish urban planner Mikael Colville-Andersen says cycling fatalities drop when helmet laws are implemented because fewer people cycle. He also says helmets paint cycling as a dangerous activity , which changes people’s behaviour. You ride more dangerously with a helmet on, and motorists treat you with less caution.

“Mandatory helmets are basically bad marketing. We are telling people for the first time in 125 years since the bicycle was invented that riding a bicycle is ‘dangerous.'”

His TedTalk on the subject.

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm interested to see numbers on a per km of activity basis. As well as information that helmets without a restraining device for the helmet and 5 point harness is actually safer than in a car as the added head mass could pose issue. Also would like info on the pedestrian risk of head injury vs bikes.

Exposure-based Traffic Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel in
British Columbia

Motor vehicle occupants had the lowest fatality rates using exposure-based denominators: 9.6 per 100 million person-trips and 0.97 per 100 million km. Bicyclists and pedestrians had similar fatality rates using one denominator (13.8 vs. 14.7 per 100 million person-trips, respectively), but
bicyclists had a lower rate using the other (2.60 vs. 7.37 per 100 million km). For injuries, pedestrians had the lowest rate and bicyclists the highest
using the person-trip denominator, whereas motor vehicle occupants had the lowest rate using the distance denominator, and bicycling and walking
had similar rates.

Table 3 shows what you're looking for.

Annual fatalities per 100,00 population

Drivers and passengers: 7.31
Pedestrians: 1.72
Cyclists: 0.24


Fatalities per 100 million person trips

Drivers and passengers: 9.6
Pedestrians: 14.7
Cyclists: 13.8

Injuries per 100 million person trips

Drivers and passengers: 713
Pedestrians: 392
Cyclists: 1398

And some interesting figures when it comes to cycling vs walking:

According to a 2006 French study pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists.

And from an Australians study from 1996 (before bicycle helmets were made mandatory there) shows the risk of head injury per million hours traveled:

Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66

The evidence is pretty persuasive that mandatory helmets for pedestrians would save more lives and reduce serious injuries more than mandatory helmets for cyclists.

A woman was seriously injured by a hit-and-run motorists in a parking lot this weekend. Odds are high that she suffered a head injury. And yet the media coverage of the story didn't say "authorities say she was not wearing a helmet" because we don't expect people to wear helmets while they walk. Why not? It would save lives and injuries - more than helmets for cyclists. But it's a hassle people don't want to endure. They'd rather marginally increase their chances of suffering a head injury or fatality than wear a helmet around while they walked everywhere. That's a deliberate choice to place convenience above safety.

But let's be honest - it has nothing to do with people analyzing risk empirically and everything to do with social norms.

Walking = Normal thing that requires no special equipment or safety precautions
Cycling = Unusual activity that requires special equipment or safety precautions

And then there's the political aspect. It's a lot easier to bully 10 per cent of the population to adopt than unpopular safety measure than it is to bully 100 per cent of the population.

Originally Posted by GGG

To add I would agree with you if you said mandatory helmet laws are bad. They discourage cycling which increases risk for all cyclists.

Yeah, there's isn't much doubt about that. Not only do more cyclists on the road increase safety for cyclists, but the more people ride, the better the overall health of the population from the exercise. And we're not talking putting on spandex pants and going for a 40 km ride, but hoping on your bike to pick up milk and bread, or go to Starbucks, or go to a friend's place to watch a hockey game, or pick up the kids from school.

Research showing the mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling. Dutch health authorities phrase it this way: Cycling helmet laws save a few heads, and lose many hearts. We reduce a very small number of one type of harm (head injuries), and substantially increase another type (heart disease, obesity).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by HHW

I would be very interested to see these statistics. I would want to confirm that this is adjusted for age group and frequency of activity. Until I do, I will call BS.

I don't doubt that certain age groups (very young children and seniors) have a relatively high incidence of injuries through falls while walking. However, I am skeptical that able-bodies adults are about as likely to suffer a serious head injury per minute spent walking vs per minute spent biking.

Most head injuries suffered by pedestrians are from being struck by cars. Here's the TLDR of my monster post above:

And from an Australians study from 1996 (before bicycle helmets were made mandatory there) shows the risk of head injury per million hours traveled:

Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457596000164

[Regorium]

I can believe those stats. But a couple of things.

1) Culture. In Canada, it's great to have more people wearing helmets. We are educated and we understand the safety benefits of it. The Danish studies are more based on the European culture of cycling, which is very old school and mature, and is obviously resistant to change. I disagree with the notion that people in Canada look at cyclists in helmets and think "oh wow, what a dangerous activity requiring special equipment, I'm going to stay home instead because of having to wear a helmet!"

2) Thus, I went to the only study that really mattered - the Canadian study. I found this excerpt:

In all, hospital admissions data for 66,716 cycling related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 were studied. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head injuries among young people fell by 54.0 per cent in provinces that have helmet legislation, compared to 33.1 per cent in those without such laws.

Among adults, in provinces where helmets are required by law, the rate fell by 26.0 per cent, but stayed constant in provinces that have no compulsory helmet legislation.

The article goes on to claim the following:

However, the authors say, “After taking baseline trends into consideration… we were unable to detect an independent effect of legislation on the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries.”

The data does not lead to that conclusion. The baseline effect of just improving safety culture and infrastructure is a 33.1% reduction in head injuries, while mandatory helmet laws improve that by an additional 21 percentage points.

Let's not pretend helmets don't improve safety for cyclists.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I disagree with the notion that people in Canada look at cyclists in helmets and think "oh wow, what a dangerous activity requiring special equipment, I'm going to stay home instead because of having to wear a helmet!".

Studies in states and countries that have mandated bicycle helmets (Australia, some American states, some Canadian provinces) have found a significant drop-off in cycling. People do say they won't go to Starbucks or the grocery store or to a restaurant by bike if it means the hassle of wearing and then carrying around a helmet, and yes, messing up their hair. Cities where cyclists have to wear helmets have much lower uptake on bike share programs than cities that don't.

The key thing is that in places where most people cycle it is not an activity. Anymore than the car trip to Starbucks, or to the drug store, or to a movie is an activity in Canada. It's just an everyday means of transportation, like walking or driving.

Tell people here to start wearing helmets whenever they drive and you would see the same reaction. Canadians would not stand for having to wear a helmet every day on every trip they made outside their home.

[metallicat]

I don't sing happy birthday. Ever.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Here are the Dutch statistics.

Sorry, I couldn't find the exact comparable for Canadian cycling. However, here's a comparison between injury rates in the Netherlands, and in Australia (where helmets are mandatory for everyone). Some highlights:

• * In the Netherlands from 2003/07, an average 8,000 cyclists were admitted to hospital each year, of whom 2,150 (or 26.85 per cent) suffered head injuries.
  
  * In Australia in 2005/06, 4,370 cyclists suffered serious injury, of which 1,122 (or 25.67 per cent) were serious head injuries.
  
  * (The Netherlands has 22 million people to Australia's 16.6 million, or 1.33 times as many people).
  
  * The Netherlands has a 1.8% greater proportion of cyclist head injuries than does Australia.
  
  * On average, every Dutch person cycles 2.5km every day and 93% of the population rides a bike at least once a week. Australians cycle about 0.1km every day.
  

I did find this second-hand reference to helmet use and injury rates among Dutch cyclists.



However, the Netherlands Infrastructure Minister has called for helmets to be mandatory for children and the elderly, but not other cyclists.

Scientists writing in the British Medical Journal say there is no conclusive evidence one way or another about the public health benefits of wearing helmets while cycling.



A Canadian study that independent analysts say is the statistically soundest on the subjects, found compulsory cycle helmet laws have had "minimal" effect on number of cycling head injury hospital admissions.



Danish urban planner Mikael Colville-Andersen says cycling fatalities drop when helmet laws are implemented because fewer people cycle. He also says helmets paint cycling as a dangerous activity , which changes people’s behaviour. You ride more dangerously with a helmet on, and motorists treat you with less caution.



His TedTalk on the subject.






Exposure-based Traffic Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel in
British Columbia



Table 3 shows what you're looking for.


And some interesting figures when it comes to cycling vs walking:


The evidence is pretty persuasive that mandatory helmets for pedestrians would save more lives and reduce serious injuries more than mandatory helmets for cyclists.

A woman was seriously injured by a hit-and-run motorists in a parking lot this weekend. Odds are high that she suffered a head injury. And yet the media coverage of the story didn't say "authorities say she was not wearing a helmet" because we don't expect people to wear helmets while they walk. Why not? It would save lives and injuries - more than helmets for cyclists. But it's a hassle people don't want to endure. They'd rather marginally increase their chances of suffering a head injury or fatality than wear a helmet around while they walked everywhere. That's a deliberate choice to place convenience above safety.

But let's be honest - it has nothing to do with people analyzing risk empirically and everything to do with social norms.

Walking = Normal thing that requires no special equipment or safety precautions
Cycling = Unusual activity that requires special equipment or safety precautions

And then there's the political aspect. It's a lot easier to bully 10 per cent of the population to adopt than unpopular safety measure than it is to bully 100 per cent of the population.



Yeah, there's isn't much doubt about that. Not only do more cyclists on the road increase safety for cyclists, but the more people ride, the better the overall health of the population from the exercise. And we're not talking putting on spandex pants and going for a 40 km ride, but hoping on your bike to pick up milk and bread, or go to Starbucks, or go to a friend's place to watch a hockey game, or pick up the kids from school.

Research showing the mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling. Dutch health authorities phrase it this way: Cycling helmet laws save a few heads, and lose many hearts. We reduce a very small number of one type of harm (head injuries), and substantially increase another type (heart disease, obesity).

I believe comparing holland to Australia or canada is two different bike cultures. Biking in not often rapid speeds with a infrastructure for biking and a lot of bike lanes. I've seen way more accidents there than here, but they are slower speeds, slower car speeds too. The taxi drive says people hit bikers all the time, just never badly. So the cultures are different.

The number of head injury to other bike injuries admitted to hospitals it doesn't talk about how bad they were, I wouldn't expect the numbers to change much as the same accidents would occur.

The fatalities per 100000 population seem off because everyone walks not everyone bikes, so it makes sense that it is lower.

as per culture of helmet making less riders, I don't buy it. people complain and say it is a slippery slope, but in holland it is about commuting. No one will stop riding there as there isn't a better option. Same here, make helmet optional, nobody going to be excited about that and go by a bike. I'm never like "I'll just drive instead of wearing a helmet" It is a weak argument.

[calf]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I don't sing happy birthday. Ever.

Me neither. Mainly for the fact that I hate it being sung to me, to the point that every year I ask my family not to sing it. They think it's funny to do it anyways, but I secretly resent them when it happens.

I was going through this thread thinking about how crazy or miserable some guys must be with some of their 'things', then realized that I have one thing that people probably makes me irrationally miserable as well. It's just a thing people don't like/don't do. I get it now.

[polak]

Originally Posted by calf

Me neither. Mainly for the fact that I hate it being sung to me, to the point that every year I ask my family not to sing it. They think it's funny to do it anyways, but I secretly resent them when it happens.

I was going through this thread thinking about how crazy or miserable some guys must be with some of their 'things', then realized that I have one thing that people probably makes me irrationally miserable as well. It's just a thing people don't like/don't do. I get it now.

But you see, I can understand the Happy Birthday thing. It puts you in an awkward spot and it's not a quick thing either.

Something like refusing to cheers on the other hand? I don't get...

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by polak

But you see, I can understand the Happy Birthday thing. It puts you in an awkward spot and it's not a quick thing either.

Something like refusing to cheers on the other hand? I don't get...

This thread does rule.

This is my scenario.
Work function with a bunch of people, that I tolerate, not like.
Drinks start flowing, and the boss or obnoxious loud office guy start cheering random company events...ughh...not me.

[CliffFletcher]

I had drinks with co-workers after work on Friday. Someone said "here's to the end of the work week - cheers" to the other two of us. We did the cheers. I can't imagine how awkward it would be to just gaze stonily at the other two people as I keep my drink clutched close to me.

[puffnstuff]

^See thats the exact situation where I wouldnt 'cheers'. I would stare awkwardly at them, glass still on the table, until finally I would say 'Yeah...uh about that...i'm uh...well i'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in to the office tomorrow. If you could do that, thatd be great. mmmmkay'

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I had drinks with co-workers after work on Friday. Someone said "here's to the end of the work week - cheers" to the other two of us. We did the cheers. I can't imagine how awkward it would be to just gaze stonily at the other two people as I keep my drink clutched close to me.

I am guessing that the situation doesn't happen because the type of person who refuses to cheers probably doesn't get invited out.

[Igottago]

Refusing to "cheers" is like refusing to shake someone's hand. What an anti-social thing to do. Drinking with someone is a bonding experience, if you aren't gonna cheers you might as well sit in the corner by yourself.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Refusing to "cheers" is like refusing to shake someone's hand. What an anti-social thing to do. Drinking with someone is a bonding experience, if you aren't gonna cheers you might as well sit in the corner by yourself.

Holy Hell, talk about the circle of life:


http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=120879

[Coach]

Yeah if I went to cheers someone and they blocked it, I would feel like they just stuck their middle finger right in my face and would treat them as such.

[OutOfTheCube]

I don't initiate the 'cheers' myself, but one of my best friends does it every time we're out. Including just a few weeks after his dad, a beer lover, passed away from cancer, with a "here's to dad". Would you still not do it?

[polak]

It's literally such a dick move.

I could totally see that escalating too if you're all drunk and it's a stranger that bought you a beer or shot too.