|
Fangz posted:I am looking at SWOV Interesting since CBS has 185 for 2015. That's quite a discrepancy. I can't imagine they have differing definitions of "dead".
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Interesting since CBS has 185 for 2015. That's quite a discrepancy. I can't imagine they have differing definitions of "dead". Even more interesting because CBS has a different set of figures on its own site! (This one seems more recent than yours) http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81452eng&D1=0-27&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0,4,9,14-l&LA=EN&VW=T Note that with this data you'd see, albeit with different numbers, my same point that 2010 was an anomalously low year (perhaps the fact that 'Unknown' vehicle deaths was 150% higher that year than normal years is significant?) with bicycle fatalities falling each year from 2011 to 2015, and that if you include changes in population you'd see that the overall rate of transport accidents has essentially consistently fallen from year to year. Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Even more interesting because CBS has a different set of figures on its own site! (This one seems more recent than yours) The set of figures i posted is the one that was reported to parliament and that the minister uses to determine policy. But appearently 9 people were revived since April. Have you found more recent figures for hospitalizations as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
I can't really be bothered because I don't expect hospitalisation patterns to be very meaningful, given that it would be heavily confounded by people's changing patterns of going to hospital after differing levels of injuries, differing levels of hospital capacity, changing policies, and on and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Mandatory helmet laws? 
drunkill fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Even more interesting because CBS has a different set of figures on its own site! (This one seems more recent than yours) Yeah this is what it looks like to me -- cycling has actually gotten safer, and probably more so if you account for the population size and distances travelled. Being a passenger in a car has gotten much safer, but I suspect that's largely ascribable to cars being packed full of airbags now (compared with the 90s). What I'd be worried about is the number of deaths from accidental falls -- that's almost doubled since the 90s. Have there been a lot of tall buildings going up in the Netherlands in the past 20 years? E: Also bicycle deaths in the range of 200 are about 1.25 per 100K population. That's still about eight-fold less than the death rate from cars in the USA: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:What I'd be worried about is the number of deaths from accidental falls -- that's almost doubled since the 90s. Have there been a lot of tall buildings going up in the Netherlands in the past 20 years Interesting that you bring this up, since it may explain the earlier discrepancy in bicycle deaths people found. The Netherlands, like most of Europe and the western world, has a rapidly aging population. This causes more accidents like 'old person has stroke, falls off bike, dies' variant. Depending who you ask, this may or may not be reported as a traffic accident and be included in the statistics people have been talking about. An aging population obviously causes more of these accidents, as well as 'regular' accidents caused by old people being unable to avoid them. This goes double when they are riding the electric bicycles that have recently become popular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
NO GUYS you're meant to accept that it's time to replace all the bikes with cars and pave over all the canals and poo poo ffs stop looking at statistics it's just obviously safer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Mandatory helmet laws? Actually i now believe we will have that in 10 years. 10 years ago you didn't see helmets on the streets at all except for some German tourists. Then you started seeing them on kids. A few years ago you started seeing them on adults and now seeing a helmet on a adult in big cities in no longer a rarity. Medical professionals have also been calling for mandatory helmet laws for a few years now and with kids growing up wearing a bicycle helmet i believe the resistance (that i also feel myself) is eroding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Just yesterday I biked past a woman wearing a helmet and did a massive  Maybe it's a thing in more civilized parts of our country? Oop norf I never really see them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Actually i now believe we will have that in 10 years. The whole argument some people put out that "well if you wear a helmet the car drivers are going to be more likely to hit you" just never made sense to me. Since most of the time that poo poo happens when the car driver doesn't see you at all, just as happens with car-motorcycle crashes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Actually i now believe we will have that in 10 years. I can see it becoming mandatory for children under 12 or something, but I doubt it'll go much further than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The whole argument some people put out that "well if you wear a helmet the car drivers are going to be more likely to hit you" just never made sense to me. Since most of the time that poo poo happens when the car driver doesn't see you at all, just as happens with car-motorcycle crashes. That's not exactly the argument. Having a helmet on tends to make cars pass more closely, while not having a helmet tends to make drivers pass people on bikes in a more safe manner. Since most accidents are from cars passing too closely, not wearing a helmet becomes "safer". The other main no-helmets argument is that they really don't do anything if you get hit with a car. Helmets provide good protection if you fall over on your own (so good for the elderly or kids who are more likely to tumble, or for sporty folks going fast on their bikes), but are poo poo if you get slammed by a 2 ton vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
It's surprisingly easy to hit your head when you fall off a bike. I'm 32 and I've been saved by a helmet twice in the last 8k miles I've ridden. e: both times while commuting (not sporty/racing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:That's not exactly the argument. Having a helmet on tends to make cars pass more closely, while not having a helmet tends to make drivers pass people on bikes in a more safe manner. Since most accidents are from cars passing too closely, not wearing a helmet becomes "safer". I'm be fair, I'm pretty sure passing too closely (while really lovely for cyclists and liable to discourage people from biking) accounts for a relatively small proportion of accidents. Dooring is a big one, and a lot happen at intersections. But yeah, one other argument is that helmet laws create an additional financial barrier to cycling, which decreases the number of people on bikes. There's some evidence that the more people on bikes leads to drivers being more aware and accident rates decreasing. Conversely, lowering the number of people biking through mandatory helmet laws could increase accident rates. Yet another argument against them is that they encourage profiling and discrimination by the police. In Vancouver, the police use our provincial helmet law as an excuse to stop and search homeless people. One of the community bike shops here actually hands out used helmets (which may be utterly useless in an accident) to the homeless just so they can get around this. E: That all said, I wear a helmet pretty much all the time when biking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Just yesterday I biked past a woman wearing a helmet and did a massive e: Well I've never managed to hit my head while cycling, except when I was a kid and biked into a parked car by myself somehow, with my head hitting the car (at low speed). While growing up I lived in a village with almost no bike infra and where cars would pass at 80 kmh on narrow country roads, but I didn't know anyone there who had a big accident. I've only fallen a few times by slipping on ice, but I've never hit my head in those cases. One time I did end up with a cut in my chin, which a helmet might have prevented but well, that was not a big deal. Each of the times where I slipped I ended up catching myself with my arms and landing mainly on my hands and arms. Entropist fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:That's not exactly the argument. Having a helmet on tends to make cars pass more closely, while not having a helmet tends to make drivers pass people on bikes in a more safe manner. Since most accidents are from cars passing too closely, not wearing a helmet becomes "safer". I've not seen any evidence that it actually makes cars "pass more closely". A person with a helmet is more likely to be able to survive and tell you "yeah that dickhead tried to pass too close", I suppose. The purported logic behind it doesn't make any sense either, why, exactly, would you expect a car driver to go "oh this guy's not wearing a helmet so I'll be careful for once. good thing I didn't notice a helmet or I'd drive closer"? Like there's hundreds of thousands of people a year who ain't wearing helmets and get hit and even killed. They're called pedestrians. Also around here in Boston most of the people you see biking wear helmets. The ones who don't tend to be using the hubway rental bike system, presumably since those don't provide helmets and it'd be a bit weird to carry your own one around just in case. Edit: Anyway what's the deal with completely wooden bridges like this on roads? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9980785,-74.737138,3a,75y,95.91h,63.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv3kQe0XNz4WzEMgYcNbeTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656  How well do these hold up over time? fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I've not seen any evidence that it actually makes cars "pass more closely". A person with a helmet is more likely to be able to survive and tell you "yeah that dickhead tried to pass too close", I suppose. The purported logic behind it doesn't make any sense either, why, exactly, would you expect a car driver to go "oh this guy's not wearing a helmet so I'll be careful for once. good thing I didn't notice a helmet or I'd drive closer"? Yeah the fishmech is right on this one. Show us the evidence. Lead out in cuffs posted:I'm be fair, I'm pretty sure passing too closely (while really lovely for cyclists and liable to discourage people from biking) accounts for a relatively small proportion of accidents. My town did a survey of this, and they concluded 70% of all bike accidents (that lead to a hospital visit) were single-vehicle crashes, ie involved only the biker rider. That's a situation where helmets really make a difference. Lead out in cuffs posted:But yeah, one other argument is that helmet laws create an additional financial barrier to cycling, which decreases the number of people on bikes. No only that, a lot of adult riders also care about the inconvenience of wearing the helmet. It messes up your hair, i guess? Moreover they think it looks uncool. So, they skip the bike and take the car or bus instead. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
I found it funny that Amsterdam barely ever labels their bike paths. If you are a dumb American tourist, very easy to just think its part of the sidewalk. Until someone almost runs you over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
They generally have red asphalt, are lower than the sidewalk (clearly not a part of it), and have signs at the beginning and end and at any intersections where they are interrupted. Sometimes a bike icon is painted on them, and the ones near the central station even have solid lines along the edges with bike icons every metre, facing the edges of the path, to make even the most clueless of tourists aware. That's more effort than they put into it in any other Dutch city! I think it's pretty clear, and Dutch people from out of town have no problem in Amsterdam as far as I know. I guess you were just not used to the way they are marked.
Entropist fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Yeah the fishmech is right on this one. Show us the evidence. You think when towns won't pay for separated bike lanes that they'll pay for some study which involves equipping a bunch of bikes with remote distance sensors? Which town was that which did the study on bike accidents? How much of that was on road accidents versus trail riding? Absolutely people should be wearing a helmet on the trail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I guess if you'd never come from a place that had sidewalks or places for pedestrians to walk and you were driving around such a place you might drive or park on the sidewalk thinking it's just a weird slightly different part of the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:You think when towns won't pay for separated bike lanes that they'll pay for some study which involves equipping a bunch of bikes with remote distance sensors? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists/ So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. so just one dude in one town
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Entropist posted:They generally have red asphalt, are lower than the sidewalk (clearly not a part of it), and have signs at the beginning and end and at any intersections where they are interrupted. Sometimes a bike icon is painted on them, and the ones near the central station even have solid lines along the edges with bike icons every metre, facing the edges of the path, to make even the most clueless of tourists aware. That's more effort than they put into it in any other Dutch city! I think it's pretty clear, and Dutch people from out of town have no problem in Amsterdam as far as I know. I guess you were just not used to the way they are marked. I didn't really notice any red asphalt to be honest but maybe it's just faded. And the signs seem to be oriented towards the bikes not pedestrians. But you are right that they are fairly obvious after you get used to it. Although there were still times we were just standing on the sidewalk looking at a map and got paranoid we were actually in a bike lane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I didn't really notice any red asphalt to be honest but maybe it's just faded. And the signs seem to be oriented towards the bikes not pedestrians. A random street, note the red bike lane on each side:  In front of the station:  These were temporary markings, they are thicker and permanent now but I couldn't find a good picture. It is true that except for these markings at the station the signs are oriented towards the bikes, but I don't know what sort of hedge of signs they would need to build along the whole path to take pedestrians into account... They can cross anywhere!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-helmets-attract-cars-to-cyclists/ I am legitimately surprised and delighted that this occurred. I'm surprised because if this were in the US then surely some IRB board would have spiked the study. I'm delighted because now that it's a piece of published research, repeating the study in other countries becomes much easier. We could have a real piece of science on our hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
2300 seems like a pretty good sample size! It'd be interesting to do the same experiment in other countries though. In the Netherlands he can also count how many people point and laugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Entropist posted:2300 seems like a pretty good sample size! It'd be interesting to do the same experiment in other countries though. In the Netherlands he can also count how many people point and laugh. 2300 isn't a good sample size when there's only the one guy on the other side of the equation. It could just as easily indicate that he as the cyclist allows cars to get closer to him when he's wearing a helmet then when he doesn't, and a lot of other people might not do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Entropist posted:2300 seems like a pretty good sample size! It'd be interesting to do the same experiment in other countries though. In the Netherlands he can also count how many people point and laugh. It's a fine sample size, but a) It's only one study b) British drivers training is much different than American. Just because the study confirms what I suspect to be true based on personal experience doesn't mean the work is finished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:2300 isn't a good sample size when there's only the one guy on the other side of the equation. It could just as easily indicate that he as the cyclist allows cars to get closer to him when he's wearing a helmet then when he doesn't, and a lot of other people might not do that. It also isn't telling us where in the road he's riding at any given time or what kind of roads these passes occurred on. Someone who's hugging the shoulder on a two-lane rural road is going to have a different experience than someone controlling the lane in a city. It's definitely very interesting data that shows a clear need for further study, but it isn't enough to really prove anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
E2: Since Walker did get posted...mastershakeman posted:so just one dude in one town As far as I can tell it was two towns, Bristol and Salisbury. wolrah posted:It also isn't telling us where in the road he's riding at any given time or what kind of roads these passes occurred on. Someone who's hugging the shoulder on a two-lane rural road is going to have a different experience than someone controlling the lane in a city. It's definitely very interesting data that shows a clear need for further study, but it isn't enough to really prove anything. The data includes distance between the curb and bicycle at the time of passing, as well as kind of road (in the table below city is used as a proxy for this, since there was a very close correspondence). There was a re-analysis of Walker, in which it emerged that, while passing distance is slightly affected by helmet use, the degree of close/unsafe passing (<1m) is not: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075424 Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
There's also a significant confound in that he appeared feminine from behind when wearing the wig over his helmet! However I definitely agree that it's a very interesting first finding and I really truly hope that there are more results in different driving environments. I always wear a helmet because I actually don't think that the space that the drivers afford me when overtaking is as related to the likelihood of a collision as overall visibility, because if you're overtaking me I'm braking and keeping an eye on you because you're probably about to try and hit me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
The Walker results say absolutely nothing about anything other than the passing distance of motorists (if that). Notably, it does not say anything about
Passing distance of motorists may be entirely inconsequential to what's actually important: having fewer, and less severe, injuries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Maybe i'm a horrible anti-bike driver but I think it's not the distance that matters, just that you are paying attention and aware of what the bike is doing. I pass parked and moving cars with only a couple feet of space, I can pass a bike without going fully into the other lane like some street cyclists demand. If I have the space I'll give them a bit more, but if they've picked a busy narrow road to ride down and they're hugging the gutter yeah I'm going to pass them without swerving half way into another lane. My car is tiny, we got space. What makes me uneasy though is when they're riding super close to parked cars or feel they have to or cars will get mad at them. I've seen people get doored (that should come with such a huge fine / suspension of license that everyone opens their door like the dutch out of fear of the law) so I don't at all mind when people ride a good meter away from parked cars. Also when bikes are nice enough to move over where cars aren't parked so cars can more easily pass them, then the cars don't let them back into the lane when they come up to more parked cars, that's such a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:The Walker results say absolutely nothing about anything other than the passing distance of motorists (if that). Well, the statistical evidence here isn't very supportive: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/1139_1.jpg http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/1139_2.jpg (From http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Maybe i'm a horrible anti-bike driver but I think it's not the distance that matters, just that you are paying attention and aware of what the bike is doing. I pass parked and moving cars with only a couple feet of space, I can pass a bike without going fully into the other lane like some street cyclists demand. If I have the space I'll give them a bit more, but if they've picked a busy narrow road to ride down and they're hugging the gutter yeah I'm going to pass them without swerving half way into another lane. My car is tiny, we got space. I'm sure it will be a great comfort to cyclists you drive past that you will be "paying attention" as they get doored/hit a pothole/just came off and immediately fall under your excessively close tyres.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Maybe i'm a horrible anti-bike driver but I think it's not the distance that matters, just that you are paying attention and aware of what the bike is doing. I pass parked and moving cars with only a couple feet of space, I can pass a bike without going fully into the other lane like some street cyclists demand. Nice strawman
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:I'm sure it will be a great comfort to cyclists you drive past that you will be "paying attention" as they get doored/hit a pothole/just came off and immediately fall under your excessively close tyres. Eh, if someone doesn't feel safe with cars passing them on a section of street they can take the lane. When someone hugs the curb I take that as a signal they're ok with being passed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, the statistical evidence here isn't very supportive: Supportive of what? I said, the walker "study" doesn't reveal anything about injury rates. Those graphs you posted are from other studies, and while they probably are relevant, it doesn't increase the validity of Walker's results. He only studied cars' passing distance, and my argument was that that measure alone does not prove anything about safety. I'll repeat: "Passing distance of motorists may be entirely inconsequential to what's actually important: having fewer, and less severe, injuries." I wrote "may be", because it has not been studied (notably not by Walker).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Supportive of what? I'm saying the plurality of overall evidence isn't supportive of the idea that helmets and helmet laws substantially affects the safety of cyclists, and that Walker's findings go some way to suggesting reasons for why. The point is that Walker's findings fit into a larger picture that more or less makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:43
|
|