Bicycling
Capital Bikeshare, launching today, will change everything
DC and Arlington deserve a lot of credit for having the vision to bring modern bike-sharing to DC. As a result, things will never be the same again when Capital Bikeshare launches 36 stations in DC and 13 in Arlington today.
Station at 14th and Harvard, NW.
It was almost five years ago to the day that DC first announced that they would be bringing bike-sharing to the District. It wasn't considered very important at the time. It only garnered a five- That was before Vélib. Almost two years later, bike-sharing hit the big time when Paris introduced a 10,000 bike system. At that point, DC could say "we're working on that too." And a little over one year later on Aug 13, 2008, DC had the first bike sharing system in North America.
Unfortunately, it was tiny, with only 100 bikes at ten stations. And expanding the system within Clear Channel proved to be problematic. By the time SmartBike had kicked off, Arlington was already working on their own bike sharing system. In part, the reason Arlington was even thinking about bike-sharing was because DC was already doing it.
It proved to be fortuitous, because once the SmartBike discussions fell through, DC found it easy to join in Arlington's already-negotiated agreement with Bixi.
Some might say that SmartBike was a failure because it was so small and because, "heck, after only two years we're replacing it." But without SmartBike, there might not be a Capital Bikeshare Dan Malouff is right when he says, "Bike sharing is going to be awesome." It will be the biggest thing to happen to area transit since Metrorail opened. It will change travel patterns and attitudes. It'll be good for the economy and public health.
The DC region has seen a steady climb in bike commuting from 1.26% in 2005 to 1.63% in 2008. That number could double in a couple of years and then double again before mid-decade. We'll see the percentage of trips As the nation's capital, what happens in this region carries extra weight. It will create demand nationwide when visitors come here and see how easy it is to use. And what impact will it have when Congressional leaders see that half their staffs use bike sharing to get to work?
As first mover, DC could reap other benefits as well. Already DC is becoming a hot bed for bike sharing consulting. And with repair expertise that the system will create, a regional repair or assembly center could locate here as other cities adopt Bixi.
The complaints thus far have been that there aren't enough stations (more will be better, and DC and Arlington are working on it) or that the two pieces are too far apart (20 minutes from Crystal City to the closest station in the District) or that half an hour is too short (it works elsewhere, and you can daisy-chain the trips together), but I suspect many of those criticisms will disappear with time.
Today, DC and Arlington are starting the largest bike-sharing system in the United States because they had the vision to see its potential, and we're all going to be better off for it.
Cross-posted on the Washcycle.
David Cranor is an operations engineer with NASA. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate and also writes the WashCycle. 
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
They are "looking into" what happened. Can't wait to hear what they've got to say...
by EdTheRed on Sep 20, 2010 9:28 am • link • report
by Alex B. on Sep 20, 2010 9:36 am • link • report
I haven't ridden a bike in years, but I'm still excited about the possibility of using the bikeshare to commute to and from work. Here's hoping those two stations start working soon!
by jaybeas on Sep 20, 2010 9:45 am • link • report
by JohnDC on Sep 20, 2010 9:51 am • link • report
I'm just a bit nervous since the 14th & Crittenden station is so much further north than the rest of the system, so I hope someone didn't look at the map and say, "meh, why bother?"
by EdTheRed on Sep 20, 2010 10:06 am • link • report
by saddlebagsdc on Sep 20, 2010 10:32 am • link • report
As always, Georgetown stays a near transit desert. No metro, no bikes, and just a few buses, except for on M & Wis Ave. I am sure the residents complained about the negative effects of bikes in the neighborhood. Attracts homeless people and drunk students, makes noise, the usual crap.
By the way, something is not a vision is it's been done elsewhere. It's called copying a good idea.
by Jasper on Sep 20, 2010 10:36 am • link • report
Does anyone know how the federal government plans to handle local trips using Capital Bikeshare? (Or for that matter how it handles privately owned bikes?).
I could imagine that until there are rules, employees will have to submit their own reasonable cost estimate. I would suggest asking government to pay the lesser of
(a) what bill would have been had employee relied on taxis and agency shuttles
(b) the pro-rata share of all trips the employee took using the bike share (i.e. montly fee times the ratio of count government trips to total trips over some period of time such as three monts).
by Jim on Sep 20, 2010 10:45 am • link • report
1. Keep the yearly price low. (see Toronto)
2. The 30 minute rule is based mostly on other cities experiences. Will that apply to DC? My sense is having slightly more time might be helpful, especially as the system expands.
3. Again, with Crystal City, I want bikesharing to work. So finding ways to make more isolated nodes valuable is important to demonstrate success.
4. Dealing with vandalism, which is going to be high
5. The measurement of bike commuting is basically is not growth, it might be a measuring error. Bike sharing will not work well for commuters. It will work well for enabling other types of rides.
by charlie on Sep 20, 2010 10:56 am • link • report
Right now it seems almost useless as a transit link. All it does is get you around in places that you can already walk from Metro in five minutes or so.
by Jamie on Sep 20, 2010 10:57 am • link • report
I think it would be helpful to tone down the hyperbole a little. "The biggest thing to happen to area transit since Metrorail opened"?? I'd say Metrorail is about 1,000 times more important than bikeshare. I'd say that the Circulator, with its [advertised] 10 minute schedule is more significant than bikeshare. The introduction of SmartTrip cards and express buses are also probably more significant than bikeshare. The launch of bikeshare is more like the "biggest thing in area transit since the invention of the Segway" (and I'm speaking as a member!)
I'd like to know how many people used the original Smartbike. There was a lot of fanfare when that opened, and talk about how it would expand to take over the city. The system never expanded, and a few years down the line the remaining bikes are looking pretty sad. But this time it's going to be different, right?
by renegade09 on Sep 20, 2010 11:05 am • link • report
"Not all of the @bikeshare stations are in yet and the website map now only shows the ones up and running"
by jaybeas on Sep 20, 2010 11:08 am • link • report
by inlogan on Sep 20, 2010 11:09 am • link • report
The reason DDOT moved forward with bike share as a concept is because smartbike was so successful, given the limited parameters of the system.
While cabi will face some challenges, I'm disappointed to hear so much naysaying right from the get go. Give it a chance, commentariat!
by JTS on Sep 20, 2010 11:18 am • link • report
As a sidenote- can anyone think of a better word for "station" for CaBi, as I've noticed that a lot of planning docs (ie the new crystal city plan and CaBi Tiger III proposal) use "station" for both CaBi and the large, Union Station-stlye bike station. I guess bixi uses station, and it is a reasonable word to use, so I guess I'm just going to have to remember to differentiate between bike station and bikeshare station!
by Steven on Sep 20, 2010 11:42 am • link • report
by jaybeas on Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am • link • report
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ifindbikes/id376137155?mt=8
by Steve on Sep 20, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report
by Chris Loos on Sep 20, 2010 12:56 pm • link • report
The official app is called SpotCycle and is available here:
http://www.spotcycle.net/
There are versions for iPhone, Android, and Blackberry.
by MLD on Sep 20, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report
There are lots of stations in areas generally well served by metro... but all seems to be two or three blocks from the metro. The Office of Planning used many factors to define where the best places were to put stations and there are, as noted, more coming in October. Some stations are limited by land and siting requirements. Stations are planned for H street and Georgetown, but the WHC probably doesn't have the kind of population density to support a station. How many people bike to the hospital?
I'd say that the Circulator, with its [advertised] 10 minute schedule is more significant than bikeshare. I disagree.
There was a lot of fanfare when that opened, and talk about how it would expand to take over the city. And it is expanding, just as Capital Bikeshare. But SmartBike was almost at capacity last I heard.
So "CaBi" is really going to stick, huh? It's so much easier to type.
by David C on Sep 20, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report
If by "the economy" you mean the health sector, and by "public" you mean brain eaters sure, why not.
Throwing thousands of bikes onto DC's streets without including some sort of helmet program is short-sited and irresponsible. One step forward, five steps back.
Let's be honest: if you're biking on a whim or don't own your own bike the chances that you'll have a helmet on hand when jumping on one of these things is depressingly slim.
by ICDC on Sep 20, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report
That said: It would be possible to set up vending machines with inexpensive helmets for sale, using designs that would sacrifice fashion for size range, though probably at only a small number of places. But doing so is simply not as high of a priority until the density of stations is sufficient to justify it. But if one person (maybe you?) were to make it their mission, it probably would happen.
by Jim on Sep 20, 2010 2:38 pm • link • report
I'd really like to believe that CaBi is going to change 'everything', but I think it is more likely to be an incremental improvement on Smartbike. Smartbike had 10 DC stations, and fewer than 1,500 users. CaBi has 36 DC stations, and I'm going to come right out and predict it will have 4,000 users. (so I still find it odd that you think it will be more significant than Circulator. Circulator serves way more people, with far more journeys per day.)
What are the incentives for the company running CaBi to expand the network? I suspect there is probably a tipping point in terms of numbers of stations, at which bikeshare starts becoming really attractive and lots of people sign up. I'd guess we're talking more like 200 stations, and they have to be more or less everywhere.
by renegade09 on Sep 20, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report
And what causes that danger? Pedestrians? Bikers? Trains? Airplanes? Or perhaps cars? Perhaps in stead of freaking out about helmets, traffic should be made safer for bikers, in stead of wrapping bikers in starfoam.
by Jasper on Sep 20, 2010 2:44 pm • link • report
It's great, simple, fast. Highly recommend it.
by Kenneth on Sep 20, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report
by nottheredbaron on Sep 20, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report
But there are a variety of legal issues with putting a CaBi station on private property, and it will probably take some time to resolve these. So, Georgetown will be short at least one CaBi station for the foreseeable future.
by Phil on Sep 20, 2010 4:32 pm • link • report
by Andy Peters on Sep 20, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report
Once achieved, some people might even begin to give biking the attention it deserves -- next only to walking as the most important mode choice in the region, and therefore deserving of the most funding in the region -- again, next only to walking.
Definitely a big day in the biking world, and definitely a good day for DC, and even a good/great day for the outgoing Mayor.
Now, if we can only get some real bike infrastructure on The Mall...
by Peter Smith on Sep 20, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report
by Peter Smith on Sep 20, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report
@Jasper: Thanks for listing all the dangers bikers face - all the more reason for a helmet component.
by ICDC on Sep 20, 2010 7:16 pm • link • report
I, for one, just put on my old, disintegrating helmet, hopped on a CB bike, and rode over to Revolution Cycles in Georgetown, where I got a 10% discount on a new one, which I am now carrying around without too much trouble.
I think most people will be able to foresee the CB trips in their immediate future and take along a helmet for safety. While spur-of-the-moment rides are definitely part of the appeal, I doubt they'll be a majority of the trips.
by JewdishoowarySquare on Sep 20, 2010 7:56 pm • link • report
Seriously? I was being cynical. Oh, the loud noise of bikes! So much louder than those Rosslyn Shuttles that come by every 10 minutes. These people are nuts. Why are they taken seriously?
@ JewdishoowarySquare: Maybe you could pull up some actual data on accident, helmet usage, and head injury rates from Montreal or Paris?
Nup. Not gonna do it. I am gonna go with the fact that the Netherlands (a small country, but significantly bigger than Montreal, Paris, or DC) has managed to create a biking infrastructure that is (and was) safe enough for people to ride without helmets. And that includes 6-year olds who bike to school with mom or dad (there are no school buses).
As long as car drivers are not required to wear helmets like NASCAR racers do, I am gonna keep whining about wearing a helmet like Lance Amstrong, Tyler Farrar and Floyd Landis do. Riding a bike at 10-15 mph is inherently not more dangerous than running. It should not need more protection. I am gonna keep hammering on the fact that helmets do not need to be necessary. All the evidence you could possibly want can be found in the Netherlands, from Maastricht to Haarlem and from Delfzijl to Vlissingen.
by Jasper on Sep 20, 2010 9:17 pm • link • report
And as for comparing it to the Circulator - the Circulator has 4 million annual trips - which is good. CaBi could break 750,000 in it's first year and by the time it's as old as the Circulator it could be up to 4 million. And the circulator got there by canabalizing other buses. It replaced the N22, the Blue Bus, 98, etc... Much of what it has done is move bus riders from one bus to another. How many unique riders has it really created? And at what cost? CaBi will change the way people get around, and at a lot less per trip.
@ICDC, pro wear helmets because they're required to. Plus they're riding at up to 60 miles per hour in tight formation where crashes are pretty common. Race car drivers wear helmets too, does that mean ordinary drivers should. Also what JewdishoowarySquare said.
by David C on Sep 20, 2010 9:46 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 20, 2010 9:51 pm • link • report
@ICDC: What I said before. It is nice to have evidence when you accuse someone (in this case, DDOT) of being irresponsible.
by JewdishoowarySquare on Sep 20, 2010 10:08 pm • link • report
I really don't want to be running CaBi down just as it launches, but the tone of your article made it sound like we're getting to use the bikes out of 'ET'.
Montreal may have 28,000 users, but it's a bigger city than Washington, and their bikeshare scheme has 400 stations. I still see 4,000 as a ceiling for CaBi membership on its current scale. Even if it is 10 times more successful than Smartbike, that would still only be 15,000 users, equivalent to 2.5% of the population of DC. On balance I think bikesharing will be 'quite good' (I realize that doesn't make a very exciting blog article). CaBi may soon be seen to be equally important to the way we get around as the Circulator, but it might also be as important as Rollerblading.
by renegade09 on Sep 20, 2010 11:00 pm • link • report
If CaBi never expands it will only fill a niche. But there is every reason to believe it will expand. One reason it was chosen was that it was so easy to expand. The region put bike share expansion near the top of its list when it made it the only project they submitted for TIGER II. In 5 years we could easily have 4000 bikes.
When the first section of the red line opened it may not have been that useful to many people, but that was just the starting point. So too with this 1000+ bike system. You're saying "today it won't do much" and I'm saying "but this is going to grow in to something that could easily constitute 5-10% of all trips in the urban core." If that's what happens, and I think it is, that would be huge. Paris (which is twice as big as the DC area by population) had 70,000 users per day in it's first year. If DC built up to 30,000 trips a year - not too hard to imagine, that's nearly 11,000,000 trips a year. And that crushes Circulator.
by David C on Sep 20, 2010 11:25 pm • link • report
by Phil on Sep 20, 2010 11:37 pm • link • report
by Dizzy on Sep 21, 2010 12:23 am • link • report
More importantly, do they come with a bell?
by charlie on Sep 21, 2010 12:29 am • link • report
To be fair, nearly a decade ago the NYTimes reported a rise in head injuries amidst rising helmet usage but even the professors performing more recent studies covered by the Times suggest wearing a helmet until drivers change their behavior: (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/health/19bike.html?scp=12&sq=Bike+Helmets&st=nyt).
Again, I'm not suggesting mandatory helmet wearing - but a review of the CaBi rack and bikes in my neighborhood turned up no prominent helmet reminders or warnings - that seems irresponsible DDOT.
@Jasper: Your point about Norway is irrelevant - we don't live in Norway and until our biking infrastructure is on par with Norway's it's reckless to pretend that it is.
@David C: Sure the pros are moving faster, but a leisurely 10 mph on a bike can quickly turn into 40 or 50 mph with the help of a car bumper.
The numbers are clear, we don't live in Norway, and until the Great Cyclist Uprising banishes every car from the District the fate of CaBi riders will continue to be ruled by careless DC drivers and gravity. A substantial helmet element needs to be introduced to the CaBi program.
by ICDC on Sep 21, 2010 1:08 am • link • report
by Gavin on Sep 21, 2010 1:32 am • link • report
I have a bad feeling we'll miss out again and it'll be up to jurisdictions to fund the (necessary) expansion. I expect Arlington will bring the system to the county's other corridors. But I'm not sure DC will add the needed density, or whether neighboring jurisdictions will join.
BTW, they should get Stewart and Colbert on one of these at the 10/30 rallies -- major publicity.
by Gavin on Sep 21, 2010 1:37 am • link • report
a) Whether adding more cyclists raises or lowers the risk of accident to each individual cyclist,
b) What percentage of bikesharing trips are typically taken without a helmet,
c) Whether the CB system itself or individual users are more efficient providers of properly-fitted, hygenic, undamaged (i.e., safe) helmets.
A good helmet makes you much safer, and you should wear one. But it does not follow that a BYOH bikesharing program will lead to hordes of new cycling accidents, or that most users won't wear helmets, or that providing the helmets along with the bikes would be a more effective way to protect their heads.
Let's see some data on those things, shall we?
Also, I could argue that CB DOES already include a "significant helmet element":
-10% discounts on helmets at local bike shops
-Including the location of local bike shops (where helmets can be purchased) to CB maps
-Constant reminders on every CB publication that we should all wear helmets
Like I said, I used my discount this very day to buy myself a new helmet, which I wore home.
by JewdishoowarySquare on Sep 21, 2010 1:42 am • link • report
That said, since i wasted a comment, i'll try to add something meaningful:
a) Whether adding more cyclists raises or lowers the risk of accident to each individual cyclist,
Lowers. Proven. Known as the safety in numbers principle.
b) What percentage of bikesharing trips are typically taken without a helmet,
i suspect soon it will be 95%+.
by Peter Smith on Sep 21, 2010 2:04 am • link • report
by David C on Sep 21, 2010 8:09 am • link • report
@Peter Smith: Thanks for weighing in with a bit a sanity. I think my early use of hyperbole (remember folks, I did use the words "brain eaters" in my first comment) may have backfired. Either way be warned, in the Church of Bike sanity is blasphemy!
@David C: "It does not necessarily indicate that helmets save lives." Helmets prevent many injuries, some life threatening, every year.
by ICDC on Sep 21, 2010 11:55 am • link • report
A quibble: "fortuitous" means only "by chance", and is not a synonym for "fortunate".
Concerning the BikeShare program: we'll see how popular this is in November. As a longtime DC bike-commuter, bicycles are wonderful in the spring and the fall, not so much in winter and summer.
by Jack on Sep 21, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report
by David C on Sep 21, 2010 4:08 pm • link • report
They do prevent minor injuries, but the number of lives saved per year are few ,at best.
by David C on Sep 21, 2010 4:10 pm • link • report
"the head was the primary body part affected for 38.6% of hospitalized/transferred patients, of which about 84.7% had a principal diagnosis of a concussion or internal head injury.
So you don't think that a helmet would help when a head injury results from 40% of all accidents? Also note that motor vehicle accidents only account for 15% of all injury-causing cycling accidents, so this is only about 1/7 of all the cycling accidents that occur. I'd say that with something like a hundred thousand people being admitted to the ER each year from bike accidents, and roughly 40% of them involving head injuries, helmets probably do more than save "a few lives per year."
by Jamie on Sep 21, 2010 4:20 pm • link • report
So you don't think that a helmet would help when a head injury results from 40% of all accidents?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you're equating all cyclist injuries with those that required a trip to the hospital.
How many bicycle crashes result in scrapes or other minor injuries that do not require a trip to the hospital?
Anecdotal evidence from my own cycling experience would suggest that a very high percentage of my injuries (mostly scrapes, bruises, cuts, etc) did not and would never require a trip to the hospital.
by Alex B. on Sep 21, 2010 4:24 pm • link • report
by Jamie on Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report
by Alex B. on Sep 21, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report
That cyclists will hit their head is beyond doubt. That the helmet will protect them when they do, is not.
by David C on Sep 21, 2010 8:56 pm • link • report
You've moved so far out on limb to challenge this that I'm beginning to smell a troll. I challenge you to a headbutt, but only I get to wear a helmet.
by ICDC on Sep 22, 2010 12:43 am • link • report
As it turns out, it has been done for helmet use while skiing, and this study, which included a control group and accounted for demographic differences between the injured group and the control, found a 60% reduction in the incidence of head injuries for skiiers/snowboarders using helmets compared to those who did not.
Now, I am sure you could argue that cycling is a totally different kind of activity and the study is absolutely non-applicable. Personally, though, I'd rather take a chance of hitting my head in snow than on pavement.
But regardless, don't you think it would be a remarkable conclusion if someone was to determine that helmets help you in every sport, activity or situation where you hit your head except cycling?
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 7:43 am • link • report
@Jaime, it would be a remarkable conclusion if someone was to determine that helmets help you in every sport, activity or situation where you hit your head except cycling? Not really. Since bike helmets are significantly more flimsy than other helmets. Not all helmets are equal. If I were in a bike crash I would want a helmet on - a motorcycle helmet. Bike helmets do help, but mostly with cuts and bruises. I wonder what kinds of head injuries they're discussing in the ski study (will read it later).
by David C on Sep 22, 2010 7:56 am • link • report
The last time I went skiing (two years ago) after nearly a decade off, I was surprised to find how many people were wearing helmets. My friend explained it to me with this logic: why would you NOT do it? It doesn't detract from the experience in any substantial way, and I want to do whatever I can to be sure that I'm around for my wife and kids.
I bought one before my first run.
Anyway, I would never favor mandatory laws like this, I just think it's amazing that any sensible person wouldn't take such a simple, painless precaution. I don't like seatbelt laws either. Because I believe that we shouldn't meddle with natural selection.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 8:10 am • link • report
By the way, try this.
Put on a bike helmet and hit yourself on the head with a 2x4. Then do the same thing without the bike helmet.
If you suffer the same injury in both situations, then I'll agree that you don't need to wear a helmet.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 8:12 am • link • report
Just like bike design and cycling clothing, helmets have been designed for the needs of high-velocity sports cycling, like spandex suits and 23-gear bikes. At least, they're designed to make you look like you speed everywhere. That look doesn't go well with a suit or even non-spandex clothing.
Oddly, I've seen some helmets that suit a professional commuter coming out of the bmx set. Take this one here, which is practically a little black dress in its versatility. I can honestly search myself and see vanity as a big reason why I dislike wearing helmets.
Jaime: Skiing helmets are engineered much more than the average bike helmets, because the speeds skiers reach are much higher, and the helmet needs to collapse differently than a bike helmet does.
by Neil Flanagan on Sep 22, 2010 8:28 am • link • report
by Dan on Sep 22, 2010 8:34 am • link • report
People competing in downhill skiing competitions go about 40 or 50 mph. Most recreational skiiers rarely go above 20 MPH.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 8:45 am • link • report
Hey DDOT, I know you're reading this: MORE STATIONS IN SHAW/H STREET!
by Dan on Sep 22, 2010 8:51 am • link • report
As a recreational skiier who goes much faster than 40 or 50 miles and hour, I can assure you that my average skiing speed is much higher than my average biking speed.
And downhill racers are pushing 75 to 80 miles an hour, by the way.
Nevertheless, downhill skiing is more like mountain biking than regular city cycling.
And yes, Neil - ski and snowboard helmets are now the norm in most places. I think this is due to several factors, but style is certainly one of them. It's also not as big of a deal to wear a helmet when you'd otherwise be wearing a hat, too.
by Alex B. on Sep 22, 2010 8:58 am • link • report
This says average recreational skiiers go 15 to 20 MPH.
Then, these guys could all ride their bikes at 40 or 45 MPH.
This says bike racers can go over 65 MPH.
The question isn't how fast can you go. The question is how fast do most people usually go?
Also, bear in mind that cyclists are sharing the road with a speed limit of 25MPH or more. At least on the slopes, you are mostly only dealing with yourself and other skiiers.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 9:06 am • link • report
That said, I offer my assessment solely based on my personal experience. I ski a lot faster than I bike. A lot faster. But when I ski, I also navigate through terrain and varied snow conditions, ski through tree glades and bowls, etc - hence my comment about skiing being more like mountain biking.
Anyway, the major danger in skiing isn't raw speed, but terrain and losing control - when the skier tries to navigate a slope beyond their ability. Falls come from a loss of control, not from raw speed. Still, I'm just telling you from my experience - when I ski, I routinely go much faster than I do when cycling.
by Alex B. on Sep 22, 2010 9:14 am • link • report
I agree with your assessment of how accidents happen, but is that important? There's absolutely no disputing that cycling injuries are common, too. Whatever the cause, they happen. The circumstances of typical accidents are certainly different, but given the frequency of head injuries in cycling accidents, it seems hard to argue that a helmet wouldn't help you.
People fall off bikes and hit their heads. You can either have nothing between your head and the pavement, or a helmet. What do you choose?
David C seems to be arguing that a helmet just wouldn't help you very much. That seems to be a position that is pretty hard to support when 38% of those admitted to the ER as a result of a cycling accident had head injuries.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 9:22 am • link • report
However, I like my brain more than my hairdo, so I wear a helmet when I bike. Besides, if I'm in an accident without a helmet and my skull gets all smashed in, my hair would never look right again anyway.
I also keep a comb, a towel, and hairspray in my office. Problem solved.
However, I couldn't care less whether other cyclists wear helmets or not.
by Matt Johnson on Sep 22, 2010 9:24 am • link • report
Comfort is big. As I noted, it's usually cold when you ski, thus you'd be wearing a hat anyway. I like my ski helmet because it's actually more comfortable than a hat - and more adjustable, depending on the temperature.
Practicality is also important - my ski helmet keeps my goggles slightly separated from my head, which helps prevent fogging up. It also holds them in place better than just strapping them around my head.
As Neil notes, style matters. Ski and snowboard helmets have much better style (and have integrated themselves with the overall style of ski and snowboard apparel) much better than bike helmets have.
There are also different helmet types. I wear mine skiing because it is comfortable, but that's also because it's a half-shell helmet. It has a lot more protection in the back of the head than a bike helmet, but it doesn't have a full shell over the ears like many ski racing helmets do. Some ski helmets even have a full face guard, motocross style. Racers I know have those full-shell helmets and they do not like to wear them for recreational skiing because they are not the most comfortable. Bicycling doesn't have nearly as many varieties of helmets for users to choose from, in my experience.
There's also the matter of gear. When I ski, I have a lot of equipment - skis, poles, boots, (at the minimum), and all sorts of clothing - goggles, hat, gloves, etc. When I'm skiing out West, I'll bring a camelbak pack to help carry all that (as well as water) - point being, a ski helmet is one more piece of gear. When I'm biking with bikeshare, I will probably have no gear whatsoever.
Finally, skiing and snowboarding is always a recreational activity. Biking is not - it can be both recreational and functional, for transportation. I'm not going to ski to work, but I will bike to work. That completely changes the mindset. I will gladly wear a ski helmet because I'm essentially going to get some exercise. I'll also gladly wear a bike helmet if I'm going on a long ride on a road bike for exercise. If I'm just going across town to get to work, that's a different kind of bike trip and I don't think helmet design has caught up to the nature of the trip or of the bike culture yet.
by Alex B. on Sep 22, 2010 9:46 am • link • report
I personally think your arguments for when you would and would not use them don't make a lot of sense. It takes seconds to put one on. Going for a long ride will probably take you on routes that are safer than commuting through traffic, and likewise, I would think that if comfort is a factor, that would be more important on a recreational ride which is all about enjoyment, versus a commute, which is purely functional and probably not that much fun to begin with.
If indeed it is "the bike culture" that is behind the resistance to wearing a helmet by some, then perhaps the bike culture needs to place a higher priority on safety.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 9:52 am • link • report
by saddlebagsdc on Sep 22, 2010 10:06 am • link • report
The helmet does indeed take seconds to put on, but you missed the point I made about skiing and gear. When I ski (or bike recreationally), I leave from home and return to home. It's one big round trip, more or less. Hauling a lot of gear isn't a problem.
When I bike to work, then I have to haul my helmet around with me all day. Helmets while riding isn't the inconvenience. What would be really useful would be a folding helmet of some sort, something that could be easier to carry around for those middle of the day, errand-type trips:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/folding-bike-helmet.php
by Alex B. on Sep 22, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
I think the worst scenario is running errands, but again, can't you just put your helmet in your backpack or whatever it was that you planned to carry your shopping proceeds home with? Or just leave it on your bike and loop a cable through it?
The folding helmet does seem like something that might be useful for this situations too.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 10:40 am • link • report
by Tina on Sep 22, 2010 10:42 am • link • report
According to iihs, 95 percent of cyclists killed were not wearing helmets.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 10:48 am • link • report
by Tina on Sep 22, 2010 11:09 am • link • report
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
58% of cyclists surveyed said they don't wear helmets.
90+% of cyclists killed each year were not wearing helmets.
Certainly there could be demographic differences between helmet-wearers and non-helmet-wearers that account for some part of this vast discrepancy. Maybe people who don't wear helmets are also more reckless cyclists. Which does make some degree of sense, since by refusing to wear a helmet, you've clearly demonstrated a lack of concern for your own safety. But that's a big gap to fill with behavioral differences.
It is abundantly clear (apart from startlingly obvious) that wearing a helmet reduces your chance of injury to the head and death.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 11:20 am • link • report
That said, it was very easy to check the bike out, and I got the last bike from the station at 18th & Columbia. It my just be a novelty thing, but it seems that people are definitely using 'em.
by renegade09 on Sep 22, 2010 11:50 am • link • report
Agree with renegade09 that the gear ratio probably not optimized for DC's terrain. Getting up hills is stupefyingly easy, but it has to be impossible to go any faster than, maybe, 15 mph. I sense that there might be a governor built in to the drive train to prevent excessive speed when going down hills. I will test that theory after work.
But, yeah, I got from 5th/K to Petworth in under 20 minutes. If I do the same on the way home (all down hill so it will be easier), the metro will be both more expensive and less convenient/timely.
by JTS on Sep 22, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report
When I visited the Netherlands, no one wore a helmet. People looked at me strange when I wore mine. Yet I have not heard of an epidemic of head injuries in the low countries?
by Michael Perkins on Sep 22, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report
Not one of those bicycles has drop handlebars. Not one cyclist is wearing any special clothing. Not one cyclist appears to be going faster than a very leisurely pace. Many of them are talking on cell phones!
Amsterdam is obviously a far more bike-friendly city than DC. The culture of cycling there is also totally different.
I don't wear a helmet when I ride my 30 year old Schwinn to around the neighborhood at 5 mph either, because I'm acting a lot more like a pedestrian than a car. But if I had to ride in the streets with cars (like you often don't in Amsterdam) I always do.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 12:16 pm • link • report
http://www.mydutchdream.com/amsterdam-bike-crash/
"It started the night before when I was about to leave centrum for home after a few joints (of course). "
Just sayin'...
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report
Now imagine, the only hardy souls who ever used parks were soccer players. Most of them wear shorts, and jerseys, and soccer shoes. You ought not blame the soccer players for perpetuating an image that is somehow intimidating to other park users. If 50% of all DC residents rode a bike to work, there'd still be the same number of folks in "special clothing" (maybe more because there'd be more support in the workplace, etc...) but they'd be hardly noticeable in the tsunami of "normals." This is the way it is in the Netherlands I expect.
You can be damned sure there are club rides in the Netherlands, and that folks there know about drop-bars, and wear "special outfits".
http://www.veloclub.nu/page1.php
P.S.: My contribution to the Helmet Jihad:
The numbers are clear, 91% of the bikers killed in 2008 were not wearing a helmet, only 8% of those killed were.
I'd be stunned if those numbers were any different, and it's not primarily because helmets keep one safe. The vast, vast majority of folks killed on bicycles are poor, riding dangerously, often at night, often without lights, and often under the influence.
These folks rarely wear helmets. You're confusing correlation with causation.
Disclaimer: I wear a helmet about 99% of the time on the road, and about 80% of the time while mountain biking.
by oboe on Sep 22, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report
say "what"? that the US has a bike helmet wearing culture or that, I'm sorry, you seem to me a bit obsessed about whether other people are wearing helmets?
I say the US is a bike helmet wearing culture because i see most people wearing helmets and its a socially accepted norm that is generally encouraged.
I rode a bike in Amsterdam (and Copenhagen) this summer for several days in each place - those people may look like they're going at a "leisurely" pace in the photos but that was not my experience. Bike traffic flows along at a fairly good clip and if you slow down to "leisurely" without getting to the side you get "belled at" and jostled to the side pretty quickly.
One thing I didn't see depicted in those photos is the flow of bike traffic where there's hundreds of bikers going by per (name a short time frame). You have to be a skilled biker to get in the flow and stay in it. That includes pace, start off from a stop at an intersection and comfort with riding with literally hundreds of others in very close proximity.
One thing that caused some dangerous confusion for me at first is that in Amsterdam the light counts down for how many seconds till you get to go across an intersection -not how many seconds you have left for safe crossing. One time is all it took to learn that. Its pretty embarrassing and memorable when every car and bus honks at you simultaneously as you cross the intersection - but not one of them endangered my life even though I was clearly in the wrong and they had the right of way.
I saw a lot more bike helmets in Copenhagen then Amsterdam. But even in Copenhagen helmets were not the norm.
by Tina on Sep 22, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report
I think that the frequency of drop-handlebar bicycles and special clothing in cultures like our own, is because a lot of people who are cycling are "cyclists" as opposed to people just getting to and fro.
It also speaks to the way the average cyclist here rides: faster.
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=50398
by oboe on Sep 22, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report
Right, my point was a little (ok, a lot) meandering. Mostly, I just meant to say that the raw number of "lycra-clad Lance-wannabes" are roughly the same. Just that there are almost *no* transportation cyclists. Well, there are, but they're almost worse than the sport cyclists as far as "special equipment" goes.
Speaking of, whatever happened to 'w' who used to post here? His "transportation bike" equipment fetish was at least as bad as any local club cyclist. :)
by oboe on Sep 22, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report
lazer urbanize helmets: http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-78341476818073_2121_31584202
bern helmets, available in at least one DC bike shop: http://www.bernunlimited.com/Products/Helmets/Macon?helmetType=Bike
by anonymous on Sep 22, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report
by JTS on Sep 22, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report
by Jamie on Sep 22, 2010 1:01 pm • link • report
It's great that more "normals" are riding. Just one positive effect of horrible suburban congestion, I suppose.
by oboe on Sep 22, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report
As for the claim that 91% of bicyclists killed weren't wearing helmets. This data is based on Police Accident Reports and many of these do not include a separate entry for bike helmet use. So the FARS data is based on the crash narrative. If no information is given, it should be listed as unknown.
Unfortunately, it appears that nearly all of these cases that should have been coded as "unknown" (including a considerable number where the bicyclist actually was using a helmet, but such usage was either never noted or overlooked in the narrative) were instead coded as "not used"
One strong indicator that the FARS bicycle helmet use data should not be fully trusted is the fact that the "unknowns" are so few in number. It is simply not credible that a low priority data element such as bicycle helmet use would have a precision associated with it that is a factor of 20 better than that seen for much higher priority data elements such as seat belt or motorcycle helmet use (0.5% "unknowns" vs. 11% or 10%)
In 2008, there were 0 unknowns listed.
And the data reported by states does not match the state's data in the FARS.
California data from the StateWide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) indicates that at least 13.2% of fatally injured bicyclists were using a helmet during the period 1994-98 (since SWITRS combines "unknowns" and "not used" into a single category, the helmet use rate is actually a minimum estimate and could be much higher, depending upon the relative number of true "unknowns" and how biased the distribution might be), but only 3.4% supposedly were doing so according to FARS.
And some cyclists are listed as wearing seatbelts or using child protective seats.
Even a cursory examination of the data indicates FARS was underestimating actual helmet use among fatally injured bicyclists by up to an order of magnitude or more during the period 1994- 98. Although the situation has improved considerably since then, FARS continues to underestimate overall bicycle helmet use in the US by a factor of two or more.
And then there's the self selection bias someone else mentioned (the poor are more likely to be in crashes, and less likely to wear helmets)
I just think it's amazing that any sensible person wouldn't take such a simple, painless precaution If it were truly painless and simple you'd be rigth, but the fact that many choose not to is indicative that the pain and complexity exceeds some threshold. Your comment reminds me of Pascal's wager - which coincidentally is also about faith.
Put on a bike helmet and hit yourself on the head with a 2x4. Then do the same thing without the bike helmet. I can't. I'm being rushed to the hospital for the first hit. Why don't you put on a bike helmet and I'll hit you in the head with a 2x4. Then, if you can get up, you can hit me in the head with a 2x4 sans helmet. That would be a better test of faith don't you agree?
That seems to be a position that is pretty hard to support when 38% of those admitted to the ER as a result of a cycling accident had head injuries. Even if that number were 100% it wouldn't change anything. The question is what does the helmet do to reduce the impact of hitting ones head. Can you prove that it's any better than wearing a Sunday bonnet?
I don't wear a helmet when I ride my 30 year old Schwinn to around the neighborhood at 5 mph either, because I'm acting a lot more like a pedestrian than a car. Which is ironic, because that's when a helmet helps you best. They're designed to help with slow speed falls to the ground. And they do - they help you avoid cuts, scrapes, bruises - maybe they can reduce the severity of other injuries. But let's not make it out to be some magic device that can keep you from dying when hit by a car (which is how most cyclists die).
Which is all a deviation from the main point, which is that some people think that not providing helmets will result in many dead cyclists. It won't. I would put the over/under on unhelmeted CaBi cyclists who die in the next five years at one, except I don't want anyone in the uncomfortable position of betting on cyclist deaths. Providing helmets would be technically difficult - how do you keep them from being stolen? keep them hygienic? Make sure they aren't damaged? etc... And it is impossible for CaBi to make sure they fit properly. So it is all a rather useless complaint since there simply is not a solution that makes sense.
Most people will bring their own helmets (I will). Most people will never be in a crash. Most people in a crash will not hit their head. And most people who hit their head will get little assistance from a helmet.
by David C on Sep 22, 2010 10:57 pm • link • report
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1174.html
Not only is the piece largely conjecture (the analysis of knows and unknows getting downright Rumsfeldian at times) the footnotes on the page are old and in some cases broken; On top of that, the most current SWITRS info relates exclusively to collisions also involving motor vehicles and lacks any helmet-related data. The whole BHRF article is suspect in my opinion, especially as it appears to be both dated and hosted by a site with a very clear agenda.
"most people who hit their head will get little assistance from a helmet." Really David? I'll take you up on that 2x4 meets helmet challenge. You can even use one of the 2x4s I already have - since you're apparently practiced at hitting other people over the head with other people's stuff.
by ICDC on Sep 23, 2010 12:08 am • link • report
There is a lot of fact in there for conjecture and the links can be easily re-established.
Where and when shall I show up to hit you in the head with the 2x4? I can hardly wait. It's been several hours since I last bludgeoned someone to death.
by David C on Sep 23, 2010 12:29 am • link • report
Well, I am disappointed that I couldn't find an actual video of such an experiment by some jackasses. But this is close:
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/stunts/Helmet_Test_1/#262344
The army helmet that guy is wearing probably offers far less protection from impact than a bike helmet. Anyone being struck with that force without any protection would probably have been knocked out.
by Jamie on Sep 23, 2010 8:15 am • link • report
"Jackass" does not equal science.
by David C on Sep 23, 2010 9:31 am • link • report
Anyway if you think that an army helmet would do a better job of protecting you on a bike, then why not just forget all the research and testing done by bike helmet manufacturers and go buy yourself a hard hat?
No, jackass does not equal science. But since science doesn't work on you, I thought that perhaps "man surviving smackdown with big stick unscathed" might. I guess not.
by Jamie on Sep 23, 2010 9:36 am • link • report
"A pad system and four-point retention system, similar to the cushions and straps found on bicycle helmets, replaces the nylon cord suspension system, sweatband and chinstrap found on the PASGT helmet."
Fascinating!
by Jamie on Sep 23, 2010 9:51 am • link • report
As for "bike helmet manufacturer" testing. It invloves dropping a helmet 6.5 feet (as well as making sure the straps won't stretch or snap). If can keeps the accelaration under 300g's it passes. 300g's is a lot of g's - considering we can only handle about 10. That's it.
Jaime, I don't care if you think helmets are the greatest things since sliced bread. You can put your faith wherever you want. The fact that you find it odd that anyone would question their efficacy speaks to the fact that you've just decided to go with your gut on this. I find it odd that someone wouldn't question their efficacy. It seems rational to ask, before putting on a helmet, "does this thing work?"
You seem to think so because several people get hit in the head while cycling and because some guy servived a blow to the head while wearing an Army helmet. That may be enough for you, but I need something more definitive.
And I do think there is evidence that helmets help. They can reduce cuts, scrapes and bruises and probably lessen the impact of a slow speed fall. But if we got the people who now don't wear helmets to start wearing them, I suspect the number of lives saved per year would be in the single digits and the percentage of other brain injuries would be reduced by something less than 10%. That's nothing to sneeze at, so I'd say you're better off wearing a helmet, But the lack of helmets on CaBi do not spell some boon for the health/undertaking business that one poster claimed.
by David C on Sep 23, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report
Yet many studies show a very significant reduction in the likehood of serious head injury by wearing helmets.
we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury
if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries could have been prevented each year
t was estimated that the risk of death from head injury was considerably reduced for helmeted
Now, I am sure you will find reasons to dispute the methodology or results of every one of the many and varied analyses of helmet use, but the raw numbers are so huge that even small increases in adoption, and even a small improvement in safety, would result in major benefits.
From CDC:
"Each year, nearly 1,000 persons die from injuries caused by bicycle crashes, and 550,000 persons are treated in emergency departments for injuries related to bicycle riding. Approximately 6% of the bicycle riders treated in emergency departments require hospitalization. Head injuries account for 62% of bicycle-related deaths, for 33% of bicycle-related emergency department visits, and for 67% of bicycle-related hospital admissions.
So the question I have for you is, where are your studies that show little or no correlation between helmet use and injury severity?
Your argument is based on nothing. You dismiss evidence when it doesn't say what you believe, but if you cannot present anything contradictory, then you're simply acting like someone defending creationism.
It's difficult to prove anything absolutely, but it's foolish to deny the conclusion that results from the preponderance evidence in the absence of anything that refutes it.
by Jamie on Sep 23, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report
by Tina on Sep 23, 2010 2:37 pm • link • report
All we're asking for is evidence that folks wearing helmets get into an equivalent number and severity of accidents, but that their outcomes are different. You haven't shown anything even beginning to approach this. It's the whole "late-night, wrong-way, drunken cyclist" problem. If 90% of the bike riders getting *hit* by cars aren't wearing helmets, then it ain't the helmets. Unless they generate a magic force-field that wards off autos.
Hence the skepticism.
Two things which might prove fruitful from your first link:
"In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40)."
The entire validity of their conclusion rests in the bolded passage above.
"Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents."
I would say teaching good cycling practices is about 5000% more important than putting a helmet on your kid as far as safety is concerned. Of course, most adults don't know how to ride around traffic (and by that I don't mean Forrester-style vehicular cycling, but proper use of bike lanes, etc...), so I'm not sure how that's going to work.
by oboe on Sep 23, 2010 2:58 pm • link • report
And it's ironoic that at the same time as you criticize me for using an anecdote, you throw out completely unsubstantiated numbers like "10%".
There is a difference between using anecdote for evidence and making a supposition based on experience and research. I clearly stated that it was my opinion. That is different from what I criticized.
Now on to the meat...
Your first two links reference the same 1989 study (it's the source for the second's claim that "The use of bicycle helmets is effective in preventing head injury"). So you really are using just two studies. For a rebuke of the Thompson study go here and of the Dorsch study here.
Needless to say, I don't give either much credence.
I think it is informative that you use the 1989 study which includes the "85%" claim. It's informative, because it is absolutely, 100% wrong. Why do I say that? Because the authors repeated the study, addressing some of the criticism they received, and found that the protective effect was only 69% to 74% effective (I also doubt that result). So the authors of that study later showed that 85% was too high. That's pretty definitive, but you've chosen to accept the 85% number. Now I don't blame you. Everyone uses the 85% number (or even more often the 88% number for the reduction in the risk of brain injury, perhaps because it's larger and more impressive. It fits with their narrative that wearing a helmet is VERY important) - despite the fact that the authors no longer stand behind that number. It's not your fault that you found it. The earlier study got a lot of press and was oft-repeated, whereas the later study was less sexy. But it is the fault of people like the insurance industry, the AMA and the government who - for reasons dealing with either laziness or some sort of agenda - continue to repeat the earlier numbers.
So you used an old number instead of the new number. So what? I think it shows that you aren't questioning your beliefs enough. You used a number that has been discredited by it's very own authors. Think about that for a minute, because you can never take that back.
You may wonder why it's so hard for me to believe in the efficacy of helmets, but I ask why it's so easy for you to believe. Before this week had you ever read the Thompson study or the Dorsch study? Did you even know about the "91% of cycling fatalities didn't wear helmets" stat, let alone question where it came from. I doubt it. I suspect that you believed that helmets save many lives because that's what you were told and it seemed to make sense intuitively. Your first piece of evidence was about the risk of head injuries, but said nothing about helmets. Yet, you were sure that helmets worked. How much reading on the subject had you done before Monday to make you so sure?
I've read dozens of these studies, and not just the abstracts, as well as analysis and counter-analysis of studies from both positions. It's a bit of a hobby. I started out very much like you - sure that helmets were very effective. But the more I read the less that seemed true. I'm willing to concede that helmets are somewhat effective - though I have only some confidence in that. Why, considering that you clearly haven't done much research on this, do you feel the need to prove that they are VERY effective?
And before you ask me, there are several reasons I think it's important to point out that they aren't very effective. The first is to counteract mandatory helmet laws or requirements that a bike sharing system make the massive financial investment to provide all riders with helmets. The second is that while news organization and education groups often talk about helmets, they rarely talk about lights, adult cycling education, signaling, riding with the flow of traffic or any of the other half dozen things that are probably (my opinion) more likely to save lives.
As for studies that show that helmets don't help much, you can try:
Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under voluntary helmet use Scuffham PA, Langley JD. 1997. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 1997 Jan;29(1):1–9
as well as any on this page
by David C on Sep 23, 2010 11:04 pm • link • report
As you admit - you've taken to these studies voraciously as a hobbyist, but that's exactly the point. You're only a hobbyist. Sure experts have messed up on plenty an occasion (securitized mortgages anyone?) but I doubt there is some great pro-helmet conspiracy afoot.
Your own continued assertions of doubt in the face of professional adjustments to well reasoned complaints just prove that you are tilting at windmills: "Because the authors repeated the study, addressing some of the criticism they received, and found that the protective effect was only 69% to 74% effective (I also doubt that result)"
Helmets are not the enemy of progress, ideologues that turn people off to the movement as a whole are.
by ICDC on Sep 24, 2010 12:13 am • link • report
experts have messed up on plenty an occasion And they repeatedly do. Every time an expert quotes the 85% number they're using a number with NO scientific validity to it. A number discredited by its own authors. What does that say to you about the so-called experts?
Your own continued assertions of doubt in the face of professional adjustments to well reasoned complaints just prove that you are tilting at windmills No, because there are still legitimate criticisms to the new data. And there are other peer-reviewed studies in direct contradiction.
The only true statement that can be made is that no one really knows how effective helmets are. It is less than 100 (helmets do not make you immune to head injuries) and more than -100 (helmets do not cause you to drop dead when you put one on). But other than that it is very contentious.
by David C on Sep 24, 2010 12:28 am • link • report
The problem with your New Zealand study, and in fact nearly every other bit of anti-helmet-wearing "research" cited by that bike helmet site, is that it only looks at the people in the hospitals.
As someone who is intelligent enough to understand the nuances of the problems with the modeling in the studies showing that helmets work, I am surprised you would mention something like this new zealand study that suffers from this far more basic problem, one which completely invalidates its results.
"Results revealed that the increased helmet wearing percentages has had little association with serious head injuries to cyclists as a percentage of all serious injuries to cyclists for all three groups. Serious injury was defined as 'admitted to hospital'"
Let's say that 100 people wearing no helmets get in a bike accident. 50 didn't go the the hospital, 30 went to the ER and were discharged, 10 were admitted to the hospital, and 10 were dead. Of the 10 admitted to the ER, 5 had serious head injuries.
Now, let's say that they were all wearing helmets. So the results could hypothetically be:
60 didn't go to the hospital, 25 went to the ER, 8 were admitted to the hospital, and 7 were dead. Of the 8 admitted to the hospital, 4 had serious head injuries.
Shocking conclusion: The proportion of head injuries, just among those admitted to the ER, is the same. How could this possibly be, if helmets helped?
Because some people, who otherwise would have gone to the hospital, did not, and some people, who otherwise would have been dead, are not, and are instead in the hospital.
This study completely ignores the fact that, actually, there are lots of outcomes to an accident other than ending up in the hospital. Not only does it not use a control group, it doesn't even look at anything other than a proportion within a tiny subset of all the relevant data.
It's completely meaningless.
by Jamie on Sep 24, 2010 7:39 am • link • report
by JTS on Sep 24, 2010 7:54 am • link • report
The point is, when you only look at a window, you ignore that by adding a factor that would tend to reduce the severity of injury, some people will move out of that window (those who didn't go to the hospital) and others will move in (those who are not dead).
One would not expect a dramatic change in the severity or range of injuries when only looking at a window of injured people. Because the spectrum from "injured enough to go to the hospital" all the way to "almost dead" will always be covered, in about the same proportion, regardless of how well helmets work, unless they worked so well that there was nobody killed at all.
by Jamie on Sep 24, 2010 7:55 am • link • report
by Jamie on Sep 24, 2010 7:57 am • link • report
by JTS on Sep 24, 2010 9:32 am • link • report
They are typically unswerving in their convictions, carry delusions of grandeur, and when attacked resort to ad hominem attacks.
by ICDC on Sep 24, 2010 11:59 am • link • report
by David C on Sep 24, 2010 7:38 pm • link • report
I only appear unswerving because, with the exception of the ski helmet study which I find NA, I've seen nothing here that I haven't seen before. Show me something new and my opinion might change.
by David C on Sep 24, 2010 11:41 pm • link • report
by dstyslinger on Sep 27, 2010 9:07 am • link • report
As per your criticism of my own methods: Correctly sourcing information is crucial, especially when holding everyone to an academic standard, indeed it is essential when using information to criticize the integrity of other information, I think my criticism was warranted: You called yourself a hobbyist: Although you showed yourself to be committed to in-depth debate, some of your early comments seemed far enough beyond the pale (again, based on my own exposure to the issue) to raise the question per your Tollness, you proved me wrong in this regard, and I'm grateful.
Short of showing you the 2x4 test in person, as you claim all of the exhibits thus far presented deeply flawed, I'll leave you with this: As I could not find actual video of a 2x4 to a bike-helmeted head this is the best I could find. Sure, this gentleman was taking an avoidable risk, and maybe the helmet made him feel safe enough to do it - but saying that his head was not protected, at a basic kinetic level, betrays the easily observable facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aXI0ubJlWo
by ICDC on Sep 27, 2010 12:36 pm • link • report
Add a Comment