Make helmets lights bells and hiviz compulsory for cyclists

Chuchote

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well cars come in all different weights now

They do, and here's a list: http://cars.lovetoknow.com/List_of_Car_Weights

Examples (unfortunately in imperial rather than metric, sorry):

2012 Toyota Camry 3,190 pounds
2012 Toyota Prius 3,042 pounds
2012 Toyota Avalon 3,572 pounds
2013 Toyota Matrix 2,888 pounds

eeguy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Transport. Cyclists should pay their way. And use licence plates for said bikes to fine cyclists who brake red lights, etc.

I can imagine the tax and registration desk in Smyths and Eurocycles already.

"But he's three!!"
"Still has to be registered madam..." :rolleyes::rolleyes:

In fairness I'd pay money to get a dedicated cycle lane on EVERY road. No cars allowed. Bollards on every side. We paid for it. You could cycle on the M50.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

I thought the current standard was kp/h? Isn't it?

Yeah, I think bells should be compulsory on all bikes unless they're actually engaged in a race.

I find bells to be d1ckish. A polite sorry excuse me in a nice calm voice is always met with a smile or a wave. When I had a bell it was always met with a look of "f*ck off".

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm arguing for vrt on bikes. Feel free to spin it anyway you want.

Every person who leaves a car to be on a bike is one less person to increase traffic, likely reducing the time spent in hospital in later life, reduce other motorists fuel costs by not being in a car and holding them at a standstill, lower road maintained centre costs, lower physical and mental health costs to the state, lower the risk of costly road traffic accidents and so on.

VRT would be 14% based in emissions (based in the car model, even though it would most likely demand a lower one due to the fact that it is 0). Even then the cost of administering and implementing the scheme would not even be close to cost neutral. The sheer lack of thinking to such a suggestion is mind boggling.

Should such a scheme ever be put forward the proposer would be laughed out of the Dail or the Seanad which is a difficult thing to achieve when you look at the standards set by some in there.

magicbastarder

to drag this hoary old chestnut out again - vehicles cause damage to the road at a rate proportional to the third power of the weight per wheel.
so let's take me and my bike - about 90KG combined.
my car - with just me in it, 1400KG combined.
so the weight per wheel is 45KG on the bike, and 350KG in the car. let's say a difference of a factor of eight, for easy maths (it's actually 7.78, but a full tank of petrol would more than account for the difference).

that means the car does 8x8x8 times the damage (in wear and tear) to the roads - per wheel, so we can double that - that the bike does.

a nice round 1,024 times as much damage.
according to this, 11,000 people cycle into dublin on their commute.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/record-number-of-cyclists-commute-into-dublin-1.2656933

they cause as much wear and tear on the roads as 11 cars.

11.
in the time it's taken me to type this, about 50 cars have passed my house. in terms of wear and tear to the roads, that's equivalent to the entire population of waterford city cycling past my house.

Cookie_Monster

dbagman wrote: »

Pedestrians don't walk at 40km p/h weaving through traffic or for the most part on the road at all and if you fail to see a horse you shouldn't be driving. What's not to get?

a horse is way more visible than a cyclist with lights? If you fail to see a cyclist you shouldn't be driving either...

pedestrian can easily be running on the road...

again, you are also just singling out cyclists from all other road users for no good reason

magicbastarder

anyway, long story short - i pay €380 a year in motor tax for my 2007 octavia.
if we want to calculate 'bicycle tax' based on the rate of motor tax (which would be lower anyway if the car was newer), we could calculate it based on:
a) emissions; 0 for the bike. no tax.
b) the weight (i.e. tied into environmental impact of manufacture) - 1%, therefore €3.80
c) actual wear and tear on the road network - 0.1%, i.e. €0.38.

a nice round average of these three is €1.20. nearly the cost of the stamp to post the envelope back to me confirming receipt of payment.

2RockMountain

dbagman wrote: »

Pedestrians don't walk at 40km p/h weaving through traffic or for the most part on the road at all

Though strangely enough, about three times as many pedestrians get killed on our roads as cyclists - so it is clearly much more dangerous, and much more in need of mandatory helmets and hi-vis. How can you ignore this huge need?

P_1 wrote: »

Just curious on the bell rule. What is defined as a bike designed for racing?

Any bike with the bell removed.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Of course cyclists dont want to pay a registration tax. They do not want to contribute to the roads and lanes they use it seems. I think you should pay. VRT could be used on efficiency of bike used, etc. I think I'll get a group together to put this plan to the minister for Transport. Cyclists should pay their way. And use licence plates for said bikes to fine cyclists who brake red lights, etc.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Money raised from this tax could help create safety campaigns for cyclists, driver awareness, improved cycle lanes, New cycle avenues. Not out of spite. You may motor tax per car you have, or should be extended to bikes. Could be based on the carbon footprint on the bike creation, eco of parts used, etc.

Funny that you mention carbon footprint. When do motorists plan to start paying for the 1/3 of our carbon emissions that are caused by their engines? Maybe if we get sorted first, we can get back to the bike tax later?

magicbastarder wrote: »

given that a bike weighs about 1% what a car does, it'd be reasonable to assume that a bike would therefore incur 1% of the tax. to whom do i send my €2?

Given that it costs at least €10 to process any transaction, how about the Government just send you €8 to say thanks for not taking up much space on the road, not causing traffic jams, not having diabetes, obesity and cardiac conditions that will incur huge costs on our healthcare system, and then call it quits?

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Only bike users feel that the benefits of them on the road.

Just wait until you manage to pi$$ off enough cyclists who will leave their bikes at home and go back to using their cars. Then you'll find out what clogged up streets actually means.

dbagman wrote: »

I was sat at a junction one day waiting to turn right. There was cars flying up my inside going straight on, and cars flying by me in opposite direction along with plenty of footfall on the paths. Busy time of the day. A car coming against me stopped just before the junction to turn right into a petrol station to my left. Thus a gap in traffic appeared. I was looking at the stopped car and then looked down road I was turning into. As soon as the car in front of stopped one passed me I made my move. In this split second a cyclist had undertaken the stopped car and was hurtling towards me. My other half let a roar out of her and informed me he had to jam on his brakes and nearly went over his handlebars. As this happened I looked left at Mr bicycle man and low and behold my filter light had come on as I was in middle of junction. Suffice to say he was obviously chasing a yellow light. A can of worms im not opening now. Probs going 40km or whatever and having come from behind a stopped vehicle he was invisible to me. In the middle of the day travelling at the speeds they can reach in busy areas they can be difficult to see.

So just to be clear, your approach to developing public traffic policy is to base it entirely on one anecdote from your past, combined (bizarrely) with some details from a football match you saw.

When I come up with one anecdote that contradicts your experience, do we then reverse the policy?

Cookie_Monster

The_Valeyard wrote: »

A visible reg plate, and tax is based on the reg. Gardai could easily adapt the new plate scanners to this also.

It's a great idea. Just the bike Stasi dont like it.

if it's such a brilliant idea how come no country in the entire world has implemented it? Ireland is hardly a world leader in progressive thinking or safety so you would have though that some other country at least would have considered it and the huge benefits it would bring to all?

ThisRegard

dbagman wrote: »

Now before all the 'studies have proven' brigade jump on the bandwagon I'll draw your memories back to the mid to late 90s. A football game to be precise. A little known team called Manchester United in a premier league game. After a pretty uneventful 1st half in the clubs 3rd kit, a drab all grey affair, the team emerged after half time having changed their kits. The reason?? The players said they couldn't see each other. In dull colours on a bright green surface in a floodlit stadium. It happened. Google it.

I also remember how people laughed at the stupidity of them. Clowns.

dbagman

2RockMountain wrote:

Though strangely enough, about three times as many pedestrians get killed on our roads as cyclists - so it is clearly much more dangerous, and much more in need of mandatory helmets and hi-vis. How can you ignore this huge need?

Probably fair to say there's at least 3 times as many people walking around the city as cycling. But sure let's overlook that fact for the sake of a good argument.

2RockMountain

dbagman wrote: »

Probably fair to say there's at least 3 times as many people walking around the city as cycling. But sure let's overlook that fact for the sake of a good argument.

What's that got to do with it? If you're trying to save lives, the percentages don't really matter. If you think helmets or hi-vis will save lives, surely you start where you have most impact - drivers / passengers first, then pedestrians, then cyclists.

Unless of course, this is really nothing to do with saving lives, is it?

dbagman

2RockMountain wrote:

When I come up with one anecdote that contradicts your experience, do we then reverse the policy?

Pretty weak response really. Actually coming up with said anecdote would have been a better shot. But thanks for trying.

2RockMountain

dbagman wrote: »

Pretty weak response really. Actually coming up with said anecdote would have been a better shot. But thanks for trying.

So that's a yes - public policy should be based on the best, unverified anecdote, for as long as it takes for someone to come up with a better anecdote?

dbagman

2RockMountain wrote:

What's that got to do with it? If you're trying to save lives, the percentages don't really matter. If you think helmets or hi-vis will save lives, surely you start where you have most impact - drivers / passengers first, then pedestrians, then cyclists.

Whats that got to do with it?? Really? It would be akin to comparing , for arguments sake,the annual death tolls in China and iceland. There's obviously going to be a higher death toll within a greater population. Law of averages.

Chuchote

2RockMountain wrote: »

Funny that you mention carbon footprint. When do motorists plan to start paying for the 1/3 of our carbon emissions that are caused by their engines?

Now you're talking!

That Manchester United story back there made me realise why the Irish soccer and rugby teams, cyclists, runners, etc, are doomed unless they change their kit. Come On, Ye Boys (and Girls) in Fluorescent!

john smith 2016

shouldn't te government be giving out cost-free hi viz and helmets to de commuuters

dbagman

2RockMountain wrote:

So that's a yes - public policy should be based on the best, unverified anecdote, for as long as it takes for someone to come up with a better anecdote?

Public policy should be based on common sense. Simple question. Forget the circumstance. Will you be easier to see dressed in a black top or a hi vis one?

Chuchote

john smith 2016 wrote: »

shouldn't te government be giving out cost-free hi viz and helmets to de commuuters

And licence plates. Licence plates for pedestrians. Otherwise you wouldn't know what they'd been at. And it will allow us to prosecute jaywalkers.

NiallBoo

dbagman wrote: »

Public policy should be based on common sense. Simple question. Forget the circumstance. Will you be easier to see dressed in a black top or a hi vis one?

I'll be invisible anybody who isn't looking, no matter how much they try and blame what I'm wearing.

cats pyjamas

The hiviz arguement was addressed by Shane Ross 2 weeks ago in response to a written question by another TD.

He replied

​To create a statutory obligation on the wearing of reflective clothing would entail making it a criminal offence under Road Traffic legislation for any person guilty of not wearing high visibility clothing. A person in breach of such a provision would fall to be issued with a fixed charge notice or summonsed to court, depending on whatever procedure would be put in place for the processing of such offences. My Department is not considering making the wearing of hi-visibility vests a legal requirement.

And

Ultimately, however, the wearing of such safety clothing is a matter of personal responsibility

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-27a.2440&s


So the Minister for Transport, who has the power to legalise this, isn't going to. Is there really any point in going on about it for another 20 odd pages?

john smith 2016

i beg your pardon but i don't see pedestrians integrating in traffic,

however, cyclists that don't know the rules of the roda

dbagman

NiallBoo wrote:

I'll be invisible anybody who isn't looking, no matter how much they try and blame what I'm wearing.

Only yourself to blame so.

NiallBoo

dbagman wrote: »

Only yourself to blame so.

From your earlier tome it's easy to see that you were only focused on the car and ignored the possibility that a cyclist could be correctly continuing through the junction.
That you fail to continue to look for hazards as you move.
That you weren't even paying enough attention to know whether you had a green light or not.

Further that you're not so great at picking anecdotes. That Man U team was completely ridiculed for finding thin excuses for playing badly, for trying to blame anyone but themselves...actually, maybe you're onto something there. ..

magicbastarder

dbagman wrote: »

Public policy should be based on common sense.

no, public policy should be based on data. because 'common sense' often turns out to be inaccurate.

2RockMountain

john smith 2016 wrote: »

i beg your pardon but i don't see pedestrians integrating in traffic,

however, cyclists that don't know the rules of the roda

Really? How do people cross the roda round your way - levitation?

And as for that outrageous slur about cyclists not knowing the rules of the road - that is clearly nonsense. Cyclists know the rules just as well as anyone else. And just like all the red-light jumping/speeding/phoning/texting motorists, they ignore the rules much of the time.

dbagman wrote: »

Public policy should be based on common sense.

Have you ever actually produced any policy? Have you any idea at all about the complexity of getting something like this right? Have you considered the cost/benefits involved? Have you considered the unintended consequences?

Please take this seriously if you're going to preach.

dbagman wrote: »

Simple question. Forget the circumstance. Will you be easier to see dressed in a black top or a hi vis one?

If you're standing in front of a hi-vis car, the black top will contrast much better. Now, are you starting to get a glimpse of the complexity of these issues, and why your 'common sense' doesn't quite cut the mustard?

dbagman wrote: »

Whats that got to do with it?? Really? It would be akin to comparing , for arguments sake,the annual death tolls in China and iceland. There's obviously going to be a higher death toll within a greater population. Law of averages.

The issue is that we don't have any influence or control over the death tolls in China and Iceland. We do have some influence over the death tolls of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. So please explain why your priority is to come up with a 'common sense' (which seems to mean ' no evidence to support') scheme to address the smallest category, while ignoring the two larger categories?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, public policy should be based on data. because 'common sense' often turns out to be inaccurate.

case in point - mandatory helmet laws should make cycling safer, yes?
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster

head injuries sustained while cycling fell by a similar margin as the prevalence of cycling fell in australia after the introduction of the mandatory helmet law - so it did not appear to make cycling safer, but seems to have made it much less attractive.

dbagman

NiallBoo wrote:

From your earlier tome it's easy to see that you were only focused on the car and ignored the possibility that a cyclist could be correctly continuing through the junction. That you fail to continue to look for hazards as you move. That you weren't even paying enough attention to know whether you had a green light or not.

Love how you completely over look the part of the story where I tell you the cyclist was clearly attempting to break the lights as my filter light came on then go on to claim the cyclist was "correctly continuing". Either you can't read or don't understand how lights work I don't know. No talking to you lot regardless. Foolish stubborn bunch. And not tarring all cyclists with same brush as alot if not most appear to agree with use of more noticeable clothing/helmets . Just appears the more vocal, on here at least, prefer to adapt the victim stance. Sure it's never a cyclists fault.

2RockMountain

dbagman wrote: »

No talking to you lot regardless. Foolish stubborn bunch.

Foolish stubborn people who look for evidence or facts or research to support public policy changes - mad, the lot of them.

Your Face

I always wear hi-viz and a helmet.
It didn't stop the car that hit me today.

magicbastarder

Any injuries to you?

dbagman

2RockMountain wrote:

Foolish stubborn people who look for evidence or facts or research to support public policy changes - mad, the lot of them.

Strange iv seen very little if any of the above. Granted i havnt read all of the previous 30 odd pages as it's mostly cyclists up in arms at the suggestion they should even try improve their chances out there. Plenty of hear say and "studies have shown" without much substance. Studies have proven 89% of what you read online is BS anyway.

dbagman

Your Face wrote:

I always wear hi-viz and a helmet. It didn't stop the car that hit me today.

Sorry to hear. As it goes you can be the safest person in the country and accidents will still happen. Hope you're OK.

CramCycle

dbagman wrote: »

Love how you completely over look the part of the story where I tell you the cyclist was clearly attempting to break the lights as my filter light came on then go on to claim the cyclist was "correctly continuing". Either you can't read or don't understand how lights work I don't know. No talking to you lot regardless. Foolish stubborn bunch. And not tarring all cyclists with same brush as alot if not most appear to agree with use of more noticeable clothing/helmets . Just appears the more vocal, on here at least, prefer to adapt the victim stance. Sure it's never a cyclists fault.

The way I read it you only realised he was an amber gambler when your filter light came on after the whole incident occurred. He is guilty but by the sounds of it, so are you.

No different than someone running a red which goes green half way through the junction and then blaming the collision on crossing traffic because they shouldn't have amber gambled. They are both in the wrong.

dbagman

Deedsie wrote:

I cycle in dublin every day and I wear hi vis in winter every year and I promise you there is zero difference in the number of drivers who don't see me or do see me and ignore me.

How can you possibly know this though in fairness?

Chuchote

dbagman wrote: »

How can you possibly know this though in fairness?

Well, I can know it, because it is my practice to turn and make a clear, large, highly visible signal of which way I intend to go - left, right or straight - to the driver/s in the lead car/s.

It's not always easy to see whether they see and understand this, because sometimes there's glare or reflection on the windscreen, and you can't actually see through to the driver.

But when I can, on a good 70% of occasions the driver isn't looking at me, and continues not to look even as I continue to wave. Yesterday a passenger nudged his driver to show him that I was signalling, and the driver smirked and mockingly imitated my gesture.

An awful lot of drivers, perhaps even a majority, drive most of the time without due care and attention.

PeadarCo

dbagman wrote:

Strange iv seen very little if any of the above. Granted i havnt read all of the previous 30 odd pages as it's mostly cyclists up in arms at the suggestion they should even try improve their chances out there. Plenty of hear say and "studies have shown" without much substance. Studies have proven 89% of what you read online is BS anyway.

So lets ignore all the evidence just because its doesn't agree with your opinion. What specific issue do you have with the studies and statistics. What are the flaws or limitations in their methodology that needs to be highlighted?

dbagman

Deedsie wrote:

There is no change in driver behaviour if I do or don't wear hi vis. The only time of the year driver error decreases is summer months and school holidays.

So it's stressed out mum's on the school run in the line of fire now?

You cannot and will not know if someone has seen you or not in the dark. And you most definitely can't say if they would or wouldn't have regarding your clothing. You'd have to of been in the exact same place, time and involve the exact same driver twice, each in attire of different colours to know for sure if they'd of reacted differently. Impossible

Your Face

dbagman wrote: »

Sorry to hear. As it goes you can be the safest person in the country and accidents will still happen. Hope you're OK.

Im fine thanks. I could have done without the adrenaline rush though.
The bike took a nice hit though.
Really don't know how he didn't see me.

dbagman

PeadarCo wrote:

So lets ignore all the evidence just because its doesn't agree with your opinion. What specific issue do you have with the studies and statistics. What are the flaws or limitations in their methodology that needs to be highlighted?

What evidence?? There's been plenty to suggest helmets and high vis stuff is safer too. Hence the requirement for them on building sites. And the numerous ad campaigns down the years suggesting their use while cycling.

PeadarCo

dbagman wrote:

What evidence?? There's been plenty to suggest helmets and high vis stuff is safer too. Hence the requirement for them on building sites. And the numerous ad campaigns down the years suggesting their use while cycling.

All the studies linked in the various posts over the threads. Why not give the thread a full read.

dbagman

Deedsie wrote:

Lights make me far more visible on winter mornings and evenings than hi vis ever could. If you want to have a go at cyclists have a go at the ones who don't have lights on their bikes. I'd agree with you 100%.

I'm more talking about during the day mate. Lights are useless in daylight. And a speeding cyclist can easily blend into their surroundings during busy periods in built up areas. You can't miss a cyclist with half decent lights in the dark.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

I rarely cycle at night and of course I have front and rear lights on my bike for the winter months. It's already dark in the mornings cycling in.

Lights make me far more visible on winter mornings and evenings than hi vis ever could. If you want to have a go at cyclists have a go at the ones who don't have lights on their bikes. I'd agree with you 100%.

Well… yes… but… I was cycling home in the dusk at 7 tonight. A cyclist with excellent flashing high-lumen lights was in front of me. I could see the cyclist, but because he was all in black, I couldn't see him until I got quite close.

However, there's still the problem of drivers simply not registering cyclists. I dress so brightly that they'd practically have to reel back covering their eyes and going "Noooo! Noooo!" like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but they still manage not to register that there's a delicate, fragile little human in their path.

Actually, it would be an interesting piece for a news show to do: send 20 or 30 cyclists in hi-viz and flashing lights up along a road, and then stop all the drivers who go along the same road and ask them how many cyclists they saw.

dbagman

PeadarCo wrote:

All the studies linked in the various posts over the threads. Why not give the thread a full read.

Havnt the patience for it. There are plenty of studies suggesting helmets save lives too. In fact wasn't that a tagline for a national campaign??

galwaytt

dbagman wrote: »

I'm more talking about during the day mate. Lights are useless in daylight. And a speeding cyclist can easily blend into their surroundings during busy periods in built up areas. You can't miss a cyclist with half decent lights in the dark.

Lights are not useless in daylight. The EU has mandated DRL-'s and removed the ability to switch off for example lights on motorcycles and scooters. Same principle here

Chuchote

dbagman wrote: »

Havnt the patience for it. There are plenty of studies suggesting helmets save lives too. In fact wasn't that a tagline for a national campaign??

It's true, helmets do save lives.

if you get into a serious accident, wearing a helmet will probably save your life. According to a 1989 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, riders with helmets had an 85% reduction in their risk of head injury and an 88% reduction in their risk of brain injury. That’s an overwhelming number that’s backed up study after study. Nearly every study of hospital admission rates, helmeted cyclists are far less likely to receive serious head and brain injuries.

But from the same article:

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

But a broader look at the statistics show that cyclists’ fear of head trauma is irrational if we compare it to some other risks. Head injuries aren’t just dangerous when you’re biking—head injuries are dangerous when you’re doing pretty much anything else. There’s ample evidence showing that there’s nothing particularly special about cycling when it comes to serious head injuries.

The article goes on to quote a 1978 study (when there were probably more bikes in San Diego than now) on head injuries by transport/other type:



It still makes sense to wear a helmet, but this is mainly because we're cycling on the same roads with drivers who may strike us. If we had a network of good cycleways, a bit less so.

dbagman

galwaytt wrote:

Lights are not useless in daylight. The EU has mandated DRL-'s and removed the ability to switch off for example lights on motorcycles and scooters. Same principle here

Useless maybe too strong a word. But defo nowhere near as effective. You could drive around with your own lights on and not see a difference.

Cookie_Monster

dbagman wrote: »

I'm more talking about during the day mate. Lights are useless in daylight. And a speeding cyclist can easily blend into their surroundings during busy periods in built up areas. You can't miss a cyclist with half decent lights in the dark.

so why have DRLs been made compulsory on all new vehicles?

edit: beaten to it, nevermind

dbagman wrote: »

Useless maybe too strong a word. But defo nowhere near as effective. You could drive around with your own lights on and not see a difference.

Having your lights on is not for your benefit, it for the benefit of people you are approaching. Of course you won't see you own lights during the day

monument

A warning to all:

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Money raised from this tax could help create safety campaigns for cyclists, driver awareness, improved cycle lanes, New cycle avenues. Not out of spite. You may motor tax per car you have, or should be extended to bikes. Could be based on the carbon footprint on the bike creation, eco of parts used, etc.

Any more posts like this will be viewed as trolling. There's two things going on here: (1) you are trolling or (2) you're thinking about this so little it amounts to a very low level of debate and unproductive posting.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

It's a great idea. Just the bike Stasi dont like it.

Read the Commuting and Transport charter before posting again. If your argument involves name calling or other attacks on groups of people, don't bother posting.

-- moderator

dbagman wrote: »

Love how you completely over look the part of the story where I tell you the cyclist was clearly attempting to break the lights as my filter light came on then go on to claim the cyclist was "correctly continuing". Either you can't read or don't understand how lights work I don't know. No talking to you lot regardless. Foolish stubborn bunch. And not tarring all cyclists with same brush as alot if not most appear to agree with use of more noticeable clothing/helmets . Just appears the more vocal, on here at least, prefer to adapt the victim stance. Sure it's never a cyclists fault.

Read the charter before posting again!

You can disagree with people without name calling.

-- moderator

PeadarCo

dbagman wrote:

Havnt the patience for it. There are plenty of studies suggesting helmets save lives too. In fact wasn't that a tagline for a national campaign??

So you prefer to comment on something you quiet clearly don't understand. If your really interested in the topic you'll have a look.

prinzeugen

Chuchote wrote: »

It's true, helmets do save lives.



But from the same article:

http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets



The article goes on to quote a 1978 study (when there were probably more bikes in San Diego than now) on head injuries by transport/other type:



It still makes sense to wear a helmet, but this is mainly because we're cycling on the same roads with drivers who may strike us. If we had a network of good cycleways, a bit less so.

Sorry but that pie chart means nothing.

Did you ever see "CHiPs" (TV series made about the same time as the stats)???

Nobody wore seatbelts in the US at the time as most cars did not have them and the steering wheels were solid steel.


Times have moved on..