Statistics

37.8 % of all statistics are made up on the spot by the 26.9% of statisticians who are in the ball park when they should be back at the office gathering facts to back up their statistics.

I can vouch for the validity of those figures because I just made them up. Whether or not you find that funny will depend on your falling into the 49.3% of people who are skeptical over statistics.

The thing that makes something funny is when a statement contains a modicum of truth, and the point here is that some of us are skeptical of certain statistics. Whether we buy into them depends on our opinions to begin with.

Here is one I see all the time:

 “Wearing a bike helmet is estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent.” 

I’m not sure where this one started, but it has been around for thirty years or more and I’m assuming that originally it had some other statistics and solid data to back up that figure.

It has been repeated over, and over again so many times, that it is now stated as fact without reference to the original study. When you analyze the 85% all it does is reinforce a person’s view that bike helmets are a good idea, only if that person held that view to begin with.

Without the original study and the data to back it up, 85% is as meaningless a number as the ones I made up at the start of this piece. Like many statistics, the number is big enough that it sounds good, but not too big. This makes it believable if you don't give it too much thought. I think this has given this particular statistic its longevity.

I don’t even know any more if wearing a helmet is supposed to reduce injury by 85% or does it reduce death by 85%? People have accidents with and without helmets, some are injured and some die, but can anyone prove to me that it is even close to 85% survivor and 15% casualty rate.

Debates about helmet use can become as passionate as any religious or political debates. One argument is that helmets make cycling appear more dangerous than it really is. Around 800 cyclists are killed each year on US streets and highways. (A little over 2 per day.) A small number compared to the 100 or more people who die each day in automobiles. (These are statistics that a simple Google search will confirm.)

Of course far more people drive cars than ride bikes, but even so in a country with a population well over 300 million, slightly more than two cycling deaths a day is not what I would label a dangerous activity. Unfortunately, the general population does not see it this way.

Jurors in civil cases often have a bias against cyclists. They view cycling on the public highways as a highly dangerous practice, and when people are perceived to engage in dangerous activities, juries tend to place some of the blame on the participant. This has a direct effect on the amount of compensation they award.

By voluntarily wearing a helmet you at least appear to a jury or an insurance adjuster to be someone who takes responsibility for their safety. They cannot award you less with the argument that you didn’t wear a helmet, therefore you contributed to your own injuries.

Unfortunately the 85% helmet statistic gives legislators fuel to press for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. While many more people die each year from a simple trip or slip and fall than from cycling related accidents.

During the bike-boom years of the 1970s, helmet manufacturers in the US saw an opportunity, and American cyclists being equipment conscious, accepted the helmet. It was however, decades later before the rest of the world followed suit. Even today the helmet is only accepted by cycling enthusiasts, not the general public.

Far more pedestrians and car drivers die each day from head injuries, yet no one suggests they should wear head protection. Maybe upon waking each morning we should place a helmet on our head before we even put slippers on our feet, not removing it until we return to bed that evening. Viewed in this light it makes the whole issue somewhat ludicrous.

Making helmets mandatory only re-enforces the general public’s view that cycling is dangerous. I still maintain that wearing a helmet should be a personal choice, making them mandatory stops some from taking up cycling in the first place.

Most start riding a bike without a helmet, a few will become serious and eventually buy a better bike and all the equipment that goes with it, which will probably include a helmet.

To sum up I wear a helmet because it offers some protection. I don’t believe it is even close to 85%, but wearing one can’t hurt. I may hit a pot hole and fall on my head, in which case my helmet may save me from serious injury. But a crash involving a motor vehicle? The best way to avoid injury there is to ride defensively and circumvent the collision altogether.

First posted in 2014. Accident figures have been updated to reflect today’s trends.

     To Share click "Share Article" below  

Here we go again

A brand new study shows that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by 70%. How about a worthwhile study into the actual cause of death of every cycling casualty. Were they wearing a helmet, and if not, would a helmet have prevented that death anyway?

Because if a cyclist is hit by a motorized vehicle doing 60 mph, he will most likely die from blunt force trauma to both the body and head whatever he is wearing. The same goes if he is crushed under the wheels of a vehicle. Does a study like this conclude that someone so crushed and dead, but avoided head injury because they wore a helmet. Does that count as a win for the helmet?

Wear a dozen woolen hats, each stretched over the next, and that too would probably reduce the risk of head injury, but that is not the issue. Studies like this just make it easier for legislators to make helmet use mandatory, and harder for those opposed to argue against.

I am not against helmet use, I wear one myself, but I am definitely against being compelled to wear one. Why not helmets for pedestrians, as more of them are hit by cars and die than cyclists. How about the elderly, they are always tripping and falling?

How about mandatory bullet proof vests for everyone, as about 10 times more people are shot to death in the US than are killed on a bicycle. We could start with bullet proof vests for school kids, and people shopping in malls. That would cut down the number of fatalities in the event of a mass shooting.

I am being facetious of course, but is it just me or can anyone else see how ludicrous it is to single out the cyclist to wear protective gear. To make him wear it under the threat of a fine, or by peer pressure from other cyclists.

It is a distraction that diverts attention from the real problem of people driving carelessly. 

     To Share click "Share Article" below

Statistics

37.8 % of all statistics are made up on the spot by the 26.9% of statisticians who are in the ball park when they should be back at the office gathering facts to back up their statistics.

I can vouch for the validity of those figures because I just made them up. Whether or not you find that funny will depend on your falling into the 49.3% of people who are skeptical over statistics.

The thing that makes something funny is when a statement contains a modicum of truth, and the point here is that some of us are skeptical of certain statistics. Whether we buy into them depends on our opinions to begin with.

Here is one I see all the time:

 “Wearing a bike helmet is estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent.”

I’m not sure where this one started, but it has been around for twenty-five years or more and I’m assuming that originally it had some other statistics and solid data to back up that figure.

It has been repeated over and over, and over again so many times, that it is now stated as fact without reference to the original study. When you analyze the 85% all it does is reinforce a person’s view that bike helmets are a good idea, only if that person held that view to begin with.

Without the original study and the data to back it up, 85% is as meaningless a number as the ones I made up at the start of this piece. Like many statistics, the number is big enough that it sounds good, but not too big. This makes it believable if you don't give it too much thought. I think this is what has given this particular statistic its longevity.

I don’t even know any more if wearing a helmet is supposed to reduce injury by 85% or does it reduce death by 85%? People have accidents with and without helmets, some are injured and some die, but can anyone prove to me that it is even close to 85% survivor and 15% casualty rate.

Debates about helmet use can become as passionate as any religious or political debates. One argument is that helmets make cycling appear more dangerous than it really is. Less than two cyclists are killed each day on US streets and highways. A small number compared to the 85 people who die each day in automobiles. (These are statistics that a simple Google search will confirm.)

Of course far more people drive cars than ride bikes, but even so in a country with a population well over 300 million, less than two cycling deaths a day is not what I would label a dangerous activity. Unfortunately, the general population does not see it this way.

Here is an article by an injury lawyer stating that jurors in civil cases have a bias against cyclists. They view cycling on the public highways as a highly dangerous practice, and when people are perceived to engage in dangerous activities, juries tend to place some of the blame on the participant. This has a direct effect on the amount of compensation they award.

By voluntarily wearing a helmet you at least appear to a jury or an insurance adjuster to be someone who takes responsibility for their safety. They cannot award you less with the argument that you didn’t wear a helmet; therefore you contributed to your own injuries.

Unfortunately the 85% helmet statistic gives legislators fuel to press for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. While many more people die each year from a simple trip or slip and fall than from cycling related accidents.

That’s because almost all of us walk on two feet, but only a select few ride a bicycle. Maybe upon waking each morning we should place a helmet on our head before we even put slippers on our feet; not removing it until we return to bed that evening. Viewed in this light does it not make the whole issue somewhat ludicrous?

Making helmets mandatory only re-enforces the general public’s view that cycling is dangerous. I still maintain that wearing a helmet should be a personal choice; making them mandatory stops some from taking up cycling in the first place.

Most start riding a bike without a helmet, a few will become serious and eventually buy a better bike and all the equipment that goes with it, which will probably include a helmet.

To sum up I wear a helmet because it offers some protection; I don’t believe it is even close to 85%, but wearing one can’t hurt. I may hit a pot hole and fall on my head, in which case my helmet may save me from serious injury. But a crash involving a motor vehicle? The best way to avoid injury there is to ride defensively and circumvent the collision altogether.

 To Share click "Share Article" below 

It is news when cyclists die, news when they don’t

In a country with a population of three hundred and fifty million people, less than two cyclists die on roads in the US each day. A pretty miniscule number, so rare these deaths are always reported by local media, to be picked up elsewhere and the stories re-run across the nation.

On any given day some 12 pedestrians will die, and around 90 people driving cars will be killed somewhere across America. For the most part these fatalities will go unreported. This lop-sided reporting of cycling deaths, gives an erroneous impression that cycling is far more dangerous than it really is.

So it pissed me off, irked me somewhat this morning to read an article in the New York Times with the headline, “No riders killed in the first 5 months of the bike share program.”

When Citi Bike was introduced earlier this year it was widely speculated that that this bike share program would be a “Blood Bath,” putting inexperienced cyclists among New York’s crazy drivers.

Now people are surprised it didn’t turn out that way, even though similar bike share programs introduced in other large cities around the world, didn’t see huge increases in cycling fatalities either.

John Pucher, a professor of urban planning and public policy at Rutgers University and a so called cycling advocate, said last year that he expected, “At least a doubling and possibly even a tripling in injuries and fatalities among cyclists and pedestrians during the first year of the bike share program.” What a prick, strange thing for a cycling advocate to say.

I have written about John Purcher before. He uses fear tactics to push his own crazy fucking ideas, agenda for urban planning. This includes separating motor vehicles from cyclists and pedestrians. A utopian notion that will never happen in large cities like New York, the cost would be prohibitive. And to what end? Just so motorists can drive like fucking lunatics, as fast as they wish, and continue to slaughter each other.

The real story in this NY Times article, and one that should have made the headline, is almost lost three quarters of the way in. It states that traffic fatalities are down 30% since 2001. This is a huge amount of lives saved across the board, cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

This bears out a truth that dick-wads like Purcher don’t get, real cycling advocates understand. The more cyclists added to a city’s traffic mix, the safer it becomes for everyone. For a start, every bicycle represents one less car, so less conjestion.

The closer you get to there being as many bikes on the streets as cars, everyone is forced to drive slower, and more important, pay attention. So even adding inexperienced riders on Citi Bikes to the mix is a good thing. It makes it safer for everyone.

Finally, New York City Comptroller, John C. Liu, has been pushing to add bike helmets to Citi Bikes. Making helmets mandatory would probably be the kiss of death for any bike share program. It makes a simple program very complicated.

No one wants to wear a sweaty rental helmet that someone else has just worn, and it is unlikely most people are going to walk around with their own helmet on the off chance they might rent a Citi Bike. Although that is an option. (Left.)

As it stands a person in NYC, has the choice of walking from A to B, or renting a bike and getting there a lot easier and quicker. Of course there is also the option of taxi or subway.

But let’s say the person decides to get from A to B under their own steam. If he/she decides to walk, they could just as likely be hit by a car while crossing the street. However, no one suggests pedestrians should wear helmets.

Helmets are designed to offer protection should the cyclist fall from the bike and strike their head. Mr. Liu states at the end of this article, that Citi Bike users ride slow, very slow, and ultra-slow. So falling from one of the very heavy bicycles is a remote possibility.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pucher is covering his ass, hedging his bets when he said in an interview last week that while he regretted predicting a doubling or tripling in bike deaths, he would be “really surprised” if future data did not reveal at least a modest increase in injuries.

I will be expecting a follow up story in the New York Times at some time or other, when it will be reported that a whole bunch of cyclists have either been killed, or possibly not.

  To Share click "Share Article" below

Pro Cycling and Helmets

With the tragic death of Belgian professional cyclist Wouter Weylandt (Left.) in this year’s Giro d’Italia.

Then just last week Columbian rider Juan Maurcio Soler was left with serious head injuries after a crash in the Tour of Switzerland.

I am wondering just how much protection does a cycling helmet really give?

The helmet rule for professional cyclists was brought by the UCI in 2003 following the death of Andrei Kivlev during the Paris-Nice race.

Since then deaths of professional cyclists while racing have doubled, so where is the protection that helmets are supposed to give a rider?

According to these figures, in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s.

However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10 professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders.

Two of the riders, Brett Malin (2003) and Bob Breedlove (2005) died while riding in the Race Across America (RAAM) and were struck by motor vehicles, not by a fall usually associated with racing. But eliminating these two from the list still leaves 8, double the number that died each decade in the preceding 40 years.  

I never really considered Professional Cycle Racing to be a particularly dangerous sport, but close to one death a year is not acceptable. Isn’t it about time the UCI and the professional cyclists themselves started to look into the effectiveness of helmets?

The UCI is quick to enact regulation for every other aspect of the sport, why not do something really useful and set some safety standards for bicycle helmets that would benefit us all.

It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on the part of manufacturers in designing something that looks cool rather than do what it is supposed to do, and that is protect a rider in the event he or she should hit their head.

I see two main problems; the outer shell is weak so it splits open on impact, and the polystyrene foam is too dense, it doesn’t absorb the impact. After all it is the helmet that is supposed to get crushed in a crash, not the rider’s skull.

Maybe this is part way to finding the answer.