Are you part of the "Culture of Fear"?

[jajones]

My logic isn't flawed, you can't compare bike riding to driving in the way you propose. Sure cars and pedestrians have more TBIs because there are more of them. You can't compare how potentially dangerous an activity is by the raw injury numbers. By that measure, sky diving and bungee jumping are safe activities because the injury numbers are so low. Those numbers are low because so few people participate. I wear helmets in cars most days I'm at work, it doesn't feel silly to me at all. The reason we don't need to advocate helmet wearing in a cars is because air bags, crumple zones, ESP, ect work better. They protect against a wide array of injuries not just TBIs, they don't take any time put on, and the driver is less likely to forget to use them. If any of these were practical for bikes perhaps they'd be considered.

Seat belt in car = helmet on bike
Why? Because both are the most convenient and effective form of safety equipment for their perspective mode of transportation. Seat belts don't work on bikes. However, seat belts, air bags etc are effective in cars at preventing all forms of injury.

For the record, I've never told any adult on a trail they need to find helmet. I did make a polite suggestion to a couple of lid-less teens riding the wrong way at Lakeshore once.

I'm not talking about absolute (raw) numbers, I'm talking about relative numbers. Percentage-wise, statistics show you have a better chance (higher percentage) of getting a head injury (open or closed) from driving a car than you do from riding a bicycle regardless of the safety equipment used. So, seat belt/air bag/whatever in car doesn't = helmet on bike.

Do you believe that wearing a helmet while driving would not lower your chances of a head injury regardless of whether the car has other safety features and equipment? Sounds like it.

[Scotty]

My logic isn't flawed, you can't compare bike riding to driving in the way you propose. Sure cars and pedestrians have more TBIs because there are more of them. You can't compare how potentially dangerous an activity is by the raw injury numbers. By that measure, sky diving and bungee jumping are safe activities because the injury numbers are so low. Those numbers are low because so few people participate. I wear helmets in cars most days I'm at work, it doesn't feel silly to me at all. The reason we don't need to advocate helmet wearing in a cars is because air bags, crumple zones, ESP, ect work better. They protect against a wide array of injuries not just TBIs, they don't take any time put on, and the driver is less likely to forget to use them. If any of these were practical for bikes perhaps they'd be considered.

Seat belt in car = helmet on bike
Why? Because both are the most convenient and effective form of safety equipment for their perspective mode of transportation. Seat belts don't work on bikes. However, seat belts, air bags etc are effective in cars at preventing all forms of injury.

For the record, I've never told any adult on a trail they need to find helmet. I did make a polite suggestion to a couple of lid-less teens riding the wrong way at Lakeshore once.

You heard it here first! A seat belt is equal to a helmet. The helmet gestapo never sleeps. It just gets more nonsenser.

So when you and the gestapo see me out on my rig riding back from the local watering hole wearing my Chrome bag, I'll salute you with the bird and point to the fact that I'm wearing a seatbelt.

[deuxdiesel]

So what's with the avatar? Is that you wearing a helmet? Ironic.

[Scotty]

So what's with the avatar? Is that you wearing a helmet? Ironic.

You don't understand irony.

It would only be ironic if I was arguing that people NOT wear helmets. Which I've never done.

[deuxdiesel]

What I really don't understand is how somebody without children would continue to vilify (for 6 pages) those of use who want to keep our children safe. I hardly consider myself a parent if my child's well-being isn't first and foremost on my mind.

[dirtjunkie]

So what's with the avatar? Is that you wearing a helmet? Ironic.

You don't understand irony.

It would only be ironic if I was arguing that people NOT wear helmets. Which I've never done.

does your did wear a helmet in the car, walking to school and on the playground?

I hope so.

[Paul Brown]

What I really don't understand is how somebody without children would continue to vilify (for 6 pages) those of use who want to keep our children safe. I hardly consider myself a parent if my child's well-being isn't first and foremost on my mind.

Like the thread title states, its not about keeping your child safe, its about crossing the line between teaching kids to be resonably safe and creating a person who is afraid and unable to access risk later in life. When I see a kid strapping on a lid to ride a push scotter, that IMO seems a bit much. I don't think you need to have brought kids into the world to notice certain child rearing styles may be to the detrement of the child.

[jajones]

[centralRH]

Wow, the bubble kids don't even get wet when they swim

[KLydesdale]

This photo says all I have to say about helmets on kids... No fear that I can detect in those eyes.

[Di_bear]

Okay, that girl has totally pimped-out gear!

I just found this and thought of this thread:

[Scotty]

Some jackhole politician in Portland has apparently joined the Culture of Fear and delared war on the heart and soul of Oregonism.

http://bikeportland.org/2011/01/12/rep- ... bill-45890

Representative Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) says that his concern for the safety of children is behind House Bill 2228. The bill, which would make it illegal to carry a child of six years or younger on the back of a bike or in a trailer, has quickly caused an outcry among people throughout Oregon and the country.

Reached by telephone at his district office a few minutes ago, the 76-year old legislator prefaced his response to my questions by reminding me that he's a professor of public health at the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) - the same institution that published a bike commuter injury study in November that Greenlick says prompted him to introduce the bill.

"Everybody should just stay calm, this is part of a deliberative process."
"We've just done a study showing that 30 percent of riders biking to work at least three days a week have some sort of crash that leads to an injury... When that's going on out there, what happens when you have a four year old on the back of a bike? From a precautionary principle, I felt it was important to discuss the issue and start a debate." (Greenlick said he was particularly surprised to find that the study results were based on "serious riders" and not just novices. Please note: That study was widely misinterpreted due to how it defined injury. See a good analysis of it by Mia Birk.)

[Tom L.]

Some jackhole politician in Portland has apparently joined the Culture of Fear and delared war on the heart and soul of Oregonism.

http://bikeportland.org/2011/01/12/rep- ... bill-45890

Representative Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland) says that his concern for the safety of children is behind House Bill 2228. The bill, which would make it illegal to carry a child of six years or younger on the back of a bike or in a trailer, has quickly caused an outcry among people throughout Oregon and the country.

Reached by telephone at his district office a few minutes ago, the 76-year old legislator prefaced his response to my questions by reminding me that he's a professor of public health at the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) - the same institution that published a bike commuter injury study in November that Greenlick says prompted him to introduce the bill.

"Everybody should just stay calm, this is part of a deliberative process."
"We've just done a study showing that 30 percent of riders biking to work at least three days a week have some sort of crash that leads to an injury... When that's going on out there, what happens when you have a four year old on the back of a bike? From a precautionary principle, I felt it was important to discuss the issue and start a debate." (Greenlick said he was particularly surprised to find that the study results were based on "serious riders" and not just novices. Please note: That study was widely misinterpreted due to how it defined injury. See a good analysis of it by Mia Birk.)

Feathering his own nest much? He's a double dipper on the public gravy train: a politician and a professor of public health at a state medical university. It sounds like the study he was involved in and referencing was a bogus and sad joke on the taxpayers. Surely there are more pressing real issues that he could be showing far more public servant interest in during these troubled economic times.

+++++++

Reached by telephone at his district office a few minutes ago, the 76-year old legislator prefaced his response to my questions by reminding me that he's a professor of public health at the Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) - the same institution that published a bike commuter injury study in November that Greenlick says prompted him to introduce the bill.
http://bikeportland.org/2011/01/12/rep- ... bill-45890


Good News from the Trauma Team
Posted on January 3, 2011 by Mia Birk

When I read about the OHSU Report , I was, of course, alarmed. The researchers’ conclusions:

“Approximately 20% of bicycle commuters experienced a traumatic event and 5% required medical attention during 1 year of commuting. Traumatic events were not related to rider demographics, safety practices, or experience levels.”

But then I actually read the report. And it turns out that the risk of serious injury being incurred while bicycle commuting is actually very small.

First issue: the terminology “traumatic event” actually should read “minor injury.” The author explained in an interview with Sarah Mirk of the Portland Mercury:

MERC: Your study shows that over 20 percent of cyclists experience a “traumatic or serious” injury. What qualified as traumatic?
DR. MAYBERRY: You had to actually be injured. It could just be skinning your knee or spraining your ankle, but it couldn’t just be a near miss.

So we’re talking about bumps and scrapes, like the ones I suffered the other day when I crashed on some railroad tracks. Emotionally, I was a bit shaken, but it passed. By the authors’ terminology, this is a traumatic event.

http://www.miabirk.com/blog/?p=352

[Scotty]

As a "researcher" I think the professor is an idiot. He did a study on adults who commute to work, but then uses the data from the study to argue for government regulation of children on bikes. The last time I checked, I didn't see any of my coworkers bringing their kids with them to work (commuting).

If you were going to argue that kids need protecting from their danger seeking parents, shouldn't you do a study focused on children who are shuttled via bike by their parents? He's proposing laws that in most instances in his own region of the country apply to recreational activities, which were not part of his study. Would this guy advocate laws regulating children in cars based on the behavior of people when they drive alone (without children) in cars?

Furthermore, his "study" doesn't address reasons for "traumatic" injury. If for instance a large portion of injuries by adults commuting to work were the fault of MOTORISTS, wouldn't it make much more sense to examine the regulation of MOTORIST BEHAVIOR?

Additionally, why is it cyclists that he's picking on when such a small small percentage of all adult and childhood injuries are involved in incidents where parents are shuttling their kind via bicycle? If you were really so concerned about safety, why not focust on the insane number of car accidents each year. There are 6,000,000 car accidents in the USA each year. About 3,000,000 people are injured and around 50,000 are killed. If you were concerned about doing the most good and protected kids, why not start there?

But no.... this jack hole makes his living as a fear monger. Better to ban kids from bikes so they can die in their parents minivan while they watch an in car DVD and their parents talk on their cell phones...

[Tom L.]

More proof that pedestrians should be wearing helmets.

*******

Last Updated: January 20. 2011 1:00AM
Report: U.S. roads less safe for pedestrians
David Shepardson / News Washington Bureau

Washington — A new report warns that pedestrian deaths rose in the first half of 2010, while other traffic deaths fell sharply.

The Governors Highway Safety Association says in the report that 1,891 pedestrians were killed in the first six months of 2010, up from 1,884 in the same period in 2009 — a 0.4 percent increase.

Advertisement

At the same time, overall road deaths fell 8 percent in the first half of last year.

Michigan is among 18 states that reported increases, with 58 pedestrian deaths in the first six months of 2010 compared to 48 a year earlier.

The problem is worse in high density states.

Some state officials attribute at least part of the problem to more pedestrians being distracted by smart phones or music players.

If the trend holds for the full year, 2010 would mark the first time in five years that pedestrian deaths had risen in the United States.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned about the issue, and has launched a major effort to improve pedestrian safety.

The agency unveiled a revamped car rating system that encourages technologies — such as forward collision warning systems and lane departure warning systems — that can help prevent pedestrian and bicyclist accidents.

About three quarters of pedestrian deaths occur in urban areas and at non-intersection locations, such as when someone tries to cross in the middle of a road.

One reason pedestrian deaths haven't declined as much as other traffic deaths, is because the economic crisis that has reduced driving hasn't stopped people from walking to school or to work.

http://detnews.com/article/20110120/MET ... edestrians