Bicyclists suck!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kevman

Of course there are stats showing that by enforcing helmet use you reduce the amount of cyclists on the road and therefore reduce the amount of cycling related head injuries.

If we ban cycling we will effectively eliminate 100% of cycling related head injuries. Just sayin...

How do you make the logical leap from "enforcing helmet use" to "ban cycling"?

Moreover, why would a mandatory helmet law "reduce the amount of cyclists on the road"?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Byrns

And I see plenty of cyclists ignoring them. ie Memorial Dr. where they choose to ride on the road and not on the path. Or on the Trans-Canada between Canmore and Banff...

Yup, totally a speed limit issue. Myself, I prefer to stay on the path and speed, and just slow down whenever approaching other pathway users. This can get annoying in busy times during the summer, but oh well. I get them all to myself all winter, and it still beats sitting in traffic on a bus.

[macker]

Got stuck behind these guys on the way to Whitefish a couple weeks back....
http://www.umcycling.org/2011/02/hammer-nutrition.html
No way they were letting us pass them and were racing 2-3 deep side by side and there was no shoulder on the road I enjoy road biking and mountain biking but this was over the line for me Had to basically drive 40-60km/h behind these guys for about 40kms. Then they saluted us as we finally got around them If you are blocking the highway there should be a law that you have to go a certain speed so you are not slowing everyone down, especially on roads that don't have a shoulder. In and around the city at least there are shoulders in most places.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here's the issue- let's say I'm a motorist who is at fault and hits a cyclist. If the cyclist is wearing a helmet the chances of serious injury go down significantly. That can have ramifications towards insurance; and even the "how bad I feel about the incident" factor.

I was cycling with a buddy when he got hit by a vehicle. He landed helmet first and actually broke his collar bone. The helmet was trashed; but he was OK once his collar bone healed.

The driver/ his insurance had to pay a few thousand in damages; instead of a 6 or 7 figure lawsuit.

Touché! Interesting Angle I've never seen presented. Perhaps change the way insurance works in these circumstances?

To me it seems similar to a pedestrian getting hit by a car wearing a helmet vs. one that isn't. Or better yet, how about the stats showing that pedestrians are more likely to get hit by a vehicle in countries that give the pedestrian the right of way? Does the invisible hand of the law do a better job protecting citizens or does common sense?

The best way to reduce the amount of injuries stemming from motor-vehicle/pedestrian or motor-vehicle/cyclist collisions is to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road.

Then again, I walk to work so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Actually it is. You can't pull in front of cars like that, but you can legally cut to the front between traffic and the curb.

Are you sure about that? I quickly scanned the City's cycling handbook, and I couldn't find anything that said cyclists are allowed to pull ahead of cars at an intersection. I may have missed it, though.

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...y_handbook.pdf

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How do you make the logical leap from "enforcing helmet use" to "ban cycling"?

Moreover, why would a mandatory helmet law "reduce the amount of cyclists on the road"?

Because it has in every jurisdiction that it's been implemented in.

edit: As for my leap. The primary reduction after the implementation of helmet laws in cycling related head injuries is form the reduction of cyclists. Therefore by eliminating cyclists we will eliminate cycling related head injuries. QED.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by kevman

Of course there are stats showing that by enforcing helmet use you reduce the amount of cyclists on the road and therefore reduce the amount of cycling related head injuries.

If we ban cycling we will effectively eliminate 100% of cycling related head injuries. Just sayin...

What? Enforcing helmet use reduces cyclists? Okay. The more logical, and applicable, statistics would be those that show that a cyclists wearing a helmet is far less likely to suffer catastrophic injuries, but carry on down this bizarre line of reasoning.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kevman

Because it has in every jurisdiction that it's been implemented in.

edit: As for my leap. The primary reduction after the implementation of helmet laws in cycling related head injuries is form the reduction of cyclists. Therefore by eliminating cyclists we will eliminate cycling related head injuries. QED.

1. Citation needed.

2. Assuming you're actually correct, why would a mandatory helmet law cause a reduction in the number of cyclists?

[kevman]

The data from Australia and now Nova Scotia suggest that legislation increases helmet use but also reduces the numbers of cyclists.
We need to develop and evaluate a combined approach to
achieve the true benefits of safe cycling.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/novascotia.pdf

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by kevman

To me it seems similar to a pedestrian getting hit by a car wearing a helmet vs. one that isn't.

Firstly; nice use of the accent on "touche" (notice I didn't use it because screw you, that's why!)

Secondly; bike helmets offer protection beyond just vehicle collisions. I've fallen off my bike and hit my head from just hitting a curb improperly and or sliding on mud. Unless you walk at bike-speeds and lauch yourself forward when you fall, I think pedestrians are safe from wearing helmets.

As for it reducing the amount of cyclists; I can only imagine it's due to the "cool factor" in that people feel like they're peddling their ass to a D&D convention when they wear one. That's their problem, not mine. It's not like we're mandating that people wear reflective vests, and an elastic band around the gear-side pant leg. Head injuries are terrible things.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by valo403

What? Enforcing helmet use reduces cyclists? Okay. The more logical, and applicable, statistics would be those that show that a cyclists wearing a helmet is far less likely to suffer catastrophic injuries, but carry on down this bizarre line of reasoning.

They're not far less likely. Furthermore, with less cyclists on the road and more vehicles the amount of cyclist to vehicle collisions go up. Are we any further ahead if there are less head injuries per collision but more collisions and therefore the same amount of head injuries???

Narrows and Causeway river bridge data suggests that in 1995 there were 36% less weekday cyclists than in the 12 months prior to law enforcement. The cyclist number vs hospital admission statistics suggest that in 1995 there was a 26% increase in injury risk to cyclists compared to the year before law enforcement.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by kevman

They're not far less likely. Furthermore, with less cyclists on the road and more vehicles the amount of cyclist to vehicle collisions go up. Are we any further ahead if there are less head injuries per collision but more collisions and therefore the same amount of head injuries???



http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

Take it from someone who has occasionally argued stupid, nonsensical points to the death; arguing that wearing a helmet while riding a bike doesn't make you safer is stupid and nonsensical. Trust me, I can recognize it when I see it. Takes one to know one kind of thing.

And just like seatbelts there are paternalistic reasons for the state to impose safety laws. It isn't just yourself that you're hurting. Hospital costs, emotional stress for the person who kills you and gets your brains splattered on their windshield, insurance costs etc.

The only reasonable explanation for an increase in cyclist injuries with helmets is they use less care because they have head protection and think themselves invulnerable.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Firstly; nice use of the accent on "touche" (notice I didn't use it because screw you, that's why!)

Alt+ codes are you friend!

Originally Posted by Yasa

Head injuries are terrible things.

Sure are! I, mostly, wear a helmet when I ride...

That's not to say I won't defend my right to have this choice!

[OilKiller]

Did Cecil just say "occasionally"? LOL...

[MarchHare]

http://umanitoba.ca/news/blogs/blog/...ycling-habits/

Their study found that helmet use was highest when legislation applied to people of all ages. Even more importantly, they found that the implementation of helmet legislation did not affect recreational or commuting bicycle use among either children or adults.

“Mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase helmet use and do not discourage bicycle riding,” says Dr. Ryan Zarychanski, Assistant Professor, Sections of Community Health Sciences and Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba who co-led the study with Jessica Dennis, graduate student, University of Ottawa.

[...]

“Contrary to popular belief, provincial helmet legislation does not cause people to cycle less, but it does result in increased helmet use, which has been shown to prevent serious head injuries,”said Dr. Zarychanski.

Emphasis added.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

And just like seatbelts there are paternalistic reasons for the state to impose safety laws. It isn't just yourself that you're hurting. Hospital costs, emotional stress for the person who kills you and gets your brains splattered on their windshield, insurance costs etc.

Agreed! But what about the costs savings we achieve by having more cyclists and thus a more active population???

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here's the issue- let's say I'm a motorist who is at fault and hits a cyclist. If the cyclist is wearing a helmet the chances of serious injury go down significantly. That can have ramifications towards insurance; and even the "how bad I feel about the incident" factor.

I was cycling with a buddy when he got hit by a vehicle. He landed helmet first and actually broke his collar bone. The helmet was trashed; but he was OK once his collar bone healed.

The driver/ his insurance had to pay a few thousand in damages; instead of a 6 or 7 figure lawsuit.

I was hit by a car two years ago while cycling and I landed head first. My helmet was also trashed. I had a concussion, torn rotator cuff and damaged many ligaments in my right hand. Since my hand is not healed yet I haven't settled, so I don't know what the payout will be.

Although the monetary payout will be less than if my head was splattered, I am very happy that I am not a vegetable or dead. I have no idea why people wouldn't wear a helmet. It literally saved my life. I'm not interested in having a huge payout, but I'm interested in getting better.

[Bunk]

When I cycle I always make a point of obeying all traffic laws (including stop signs). I too get annoyed at cyclists that pick and choose which laws to abide by.

It's funny though that when you do obey the rules some drivers don't know how to react to it. I was at 14th street and 13th avenue SW. Waiting to cross 14th like any other car would. This one guy driving on 14th just stops and insists I go through (even though other cars are still, correctly, driving right on by). He gets mad, I yell. It was ugly.

I think the best solution is to really provide the right infrastructure for cycling to exist - both on and off street. It will clarify things. I think often cyclists are darting in and out of traffic, on and off sidewalks because there is no clear, legible or safe space for them. In places where that space is really well defined, these ped-cycle conflicts or ped-car conflicts are much reduced.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://umanitoba.ca/news/blogs/blog/...ycling-habits/



Emphasis added.

That's funny that a news article would show that when other stats show the opposite? Maybe it's a Manitoba thing?

Numbers in Australia are down after their law was implemented.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bicycle_numbers.html
Even more so considering that their population has increased...



Why would Australia, such a warm country by Canada's standard, have such low cycling among women?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by kevman

Agreed! But what about the costs savings we achieve by having more cyclists and thus a more active population???

They are offset by the costs of taking care of these individuals who have brain damage from not wearing a helmet?