Study Finds Cyclist Deaths on the Rise

[dios.del.sol]

Any one ever wreck?  Did the helmet help?

Yes. I've crashed both ways (all racing, never commuting.. OK, one as a dumb kid). The fun kind of crashes - going close to 40 mph. Not tooling-around-town kinds of crashes. I cracked the helmets as they should crack. Did get a concussion once, but no major or permanent damage. I've seen plenty of buddies with lives saved by helmets that were completely mangled in a crash. I've never seen anybody faceplant. Broken collarbones yes, but no faces in the asphalt.

I have experienced the energy-absorbing capacities of rupturing foam enough times that I will always wear a helmet. Plus I make all my money with my head. It's the cheapest insurance I can buy. Helmets are designed to withstand the most common ways of crashing - head over bars, or head laterally onto the ground. They should be worn correctly - rotated to cover much of the forehead, not tilted back. Look, a helmet ain't gonna save you from everything. It will save you in a collision with the ground if you're travelling forward while sitting on a bike. It was never designed to save you from a collision with a car. If you encounter a car, you're pretty much F-ed. If that's the way I go, and if there is indeed an afterlife, I guess I'll just say "hey, I was as prepared as I could be... the cards just didn't line up for me." And if anyone ever buys the farm for lack of wearing a helmet... this is me not caring.

[Gin1984]

Any one ever wreck?  Did the helmet help?

Yes. I've crashed both ways (all racing, never commuting.. OK, one as a dumb kid). The fun kind of crashes - going close to 40 mph. Not tooling-around-town kinds of crashes. I cracked the helmets as they should crack. Did get a concussion once, but no major or permanent damage. I've seen plenty of buddies with lives saved by helmets that were completely mangled in a crash. I've never seen anybody faceplant. Broken collarbones yes, but no faces in the asphalt.

I have experienced the energy-absorbing capacities of rupturing foam enough times that I will always wear a helmet. Plus I make all my money with my head. It's the cheapest insurance I can buy. Helmets are designed to withstand the most common ways of crashing - head over bars, or head laterally onto the ground. They should be worn correctly - rotated to cover much of the forehead, not tilted back. Look, a helmet ain't gonna save you from everything. It will save you in a collision with the ground if you're travelling forward while sitting on a bike. It was never designed to save you from a collision with a car. If you encounter a car, you're pretty much F-ed. If that's the way I go, and if there is indeed an afterlife, I guess I'll just say "hey, I was as prepared as I could be... the cards just didn't line up for me." And if anyone ever buys the farm for lack of wearing a helmet... this is me not caring.

My husband crashed on a motorcycle and still has his helmet as a reminder.  He would have been dead without it, with it he just was bedridden for over six months and then PT.

[zinnie]

That summary was just terrible. This was my favorite line....

Almost 70 percent of cyclist deaths happened in cities, and more than half are concentrated in just six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Michigan, and Texas.

Wow, more than half were concentrated in just six states! Throw out Michigan (at #9) and the author has shockingly just named the five most populous states in the US. This is journalism at its very finest folks.... I am shocked, shocked I say, that there were significantly more cycling deaths where cyclists actually live.

In other words, cycling in Michigan is disproportionately dangerous. Why does that not surprise me?

That's not necessarily what those statistic mean.  hybrid only gave cyclist deaths and state populations, but not per capita cyclist.  You have assumed per capita cyclist is proportional to population, which may or may not be true.

You're right, but in order for it not to be true, Michigan's cyclists per capita would have to be higher than those other states, which I very much doubt.

By other states you mean #6, 7, and 8 in terms of population?   We weren't given the statistics on those states either so we have no idea how large of a margin michigan beats them by.  And why do you very much doubt michigan might have higher per capita cyclist than those 3 states?  That doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

I wouldn't find it surprising at all that Michigan could have more cyclists per capita than Georgia. Michigan has a lot of college towns, like Ann Arbor and Lansing, where biking is a widely-used method of transportation. Midwest college towns tend to do this very well. This is a comment made just from personal experience without doing any research at all, however, so take it with a grain of salt...

[frugalnacho]

I wouldn't find it surprising at all that Michigan could have more cyclists per capita than Georgia. Michigan has a lot of college towns, like Ann Arbor and Lansing, where biking is a widely-used method of transportation. Midwest college towns tend to do this very well. This is a comment made just from personal experience without doing any research at all, however, so take it with a grain of salt...

That was pretty much my train of thought.  While I don't know whether it's true or not (that cycling in michigan is proportionally more dangerous like Jack claimed), I would not be particularly surprised either way, but I still think we haven't been given sufficient data to draw that conclusion.

[Jack]

I wouldn't find it surprising at all that Michigan could have more cyclists per capita than Georgia. Michigan has a lot of college towns, like Ann Arbor and Lansing, where biking is a widely-used method of transportation. Midwest college towns tend to do this very well. This is a comment made just from personal experience without doing any research at all, however, so take it with a grain of salt...

That was pretty much my train of thought.  While I don't know whether it's true or not (that cycling in michigan is proportionally more dangerous like Jack claimed), I would not be particularly surprised either way, but I still think we haven't been given sufficient data to draw that conclusion.

• What, you think Georgia doesn't also have college towns (most notably, Athens)?
• I'm so thrilled that you've apparently decided to completely ignore where I cited actual research in favor of your personal experiences (a.k.a. wild-ass guesses).

I'm beginning to think y'all have some sort of visceral bias against the idea that Southerners could be smart enough to use any form of transportation other than big-ass pickup trucks with confederate flags attached. I mean, since "Midwest college towns tend to do this very well" they couldn't possibly fail to be superior to those inbred hicks in Georgia, amirite?!

[frugalnacho]

I wouldn't find it surprising at all that Michigan could have more cyclists per capita than Georgia. Michigan has a lot of college towns, like Ann Arbor and Lansing, where biking is a widely-used method of transportation. Midwest college towns tend to do this very well. This is a comment made just from personal experience without doing any research at all, however, so take it with a grain of salt...

That was pretty much my train of thought.  While I don't know whether it's true or not (that cycling in michigan is proportionally more dangerous like Jack claimed), I would not be particularly surprised either way, but I still think we haven't been given sufficient data to draw that conclusion.

• What, you think Georgia doesn't also have college towns (most notably, Athens)?
• I'm so thrilled that you've apparently decided to completely ignore where I cited actual research in favor of your personal experiences (a.k.a. wild-ass guesses).

I'm beginning to think y'all have some sort of visceral bias against the idea that Southerners could be smart enough to use any form of transportation other than big-ass pickup trucks with confederate flags attached. I mean, since "Midwest college towns tend to do this very well" they couldn't possibly fail to be superior to those inbred hicks in Georgia, amirite?!

Yes, clearly you have provided indisputable proof that biking in michigan is proportionally more dangerous than all other states by providing vague statistics from 2 cities while simultaneously admitting the cycling miles per capita is hard, if not impossible to come by (and you're not even sure anyone's measuring it to begin with [and I would add is not even possible to measure]).

I still stand by statement.

While I don't know whether it's true or not (that cycling in michigan is proportionally more dangerous like Jack claimed), I would not be particularly surprised either way, but I still think we haven't been given sufficient data to draw that conclusion.

[frugalnacho]

And more to the point, regardless of whether or not it's true, I still don't think you were given sufficient information to originally make the claim below.

That summary was just terrible. This was my favorite line....

Almost 70 percent of cyclist deaths happened in cities, and more than half are concentrated in just six states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Michigan, and Texas.

Wow, more than half were concentrated in just six states! Throw out Michigan (at #9) and the author has shockingly just named the five most populous states in the US. This is journalism at its very finest folks.... I am shocked, shocked I say, that there were significantly more cycling deaths where cyclists actually live.

In other words, cycling in Michigan is disproportionately dangerous. Why does that not surprise me?