Let's look at death by car - using data not anecdotes

Triathlon Forum
21

In the grand scheme of things, death-by-car is a low probability of death for a cyclist. But when it happens, odds are exceedingly high that it is the rider’s fault, both in causing the collision and then by not having a helmet on when they caused the collision.

both in causing the collision

This is not true where I live (New York City).

and then by not having a helmet on

This is wrong on multiple levels. First off, many of the people killed by drivers where I live sustain massive injuries that helmets cannot prevent. Here is a recent look at helmet for protection in cycling - they help when the cyclist crashes, but not “in most high-energetic crashes, especially when motor-vehicles or trains were involved”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059?via%3Dihub

Second - blaming the victim if a driver hits them is absurd. Do you blame other people killed by cars for not wearing helmets? Helmets would certainly help drivers and passengers - do you blame people hurt inside cars for not wearing them? If, as you say, death by car is super rare, it’s utter nonsense to blame someone for not wearing armor against it.

Take a look at theses photo from the site where a person was killed by a driver in my city a few days ago (there is no dead body in the images BTW). No helmet on - but do you think it would have helped? Her head was severely injured. And look at the shoes. This person was doing nothing illegal.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/bklyner/bklyner/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-08-at-2.08.47-PM.png
https://s3.amazonaws.com/bklyner/bklyner/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screen-Shot-2019-07-08-at-2.10.21-PM.png

And in this case other case, no one was killed, but this is what’s happening in my city every few weeks. Note, none of the victims were wearing helmets!!!
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-cab-crash-manhattan-20190711-domv64i2l5gpfb57mlucs2fycm-story.html

22

There will always be a risk. Here’s what I do now to reduce my risk:

  • Rear and front flashing lights now all the time

  • Think carefully about route and traffic volume - always choose a route with less!

  • But to the above, sometimes a busy road WITH a good and full bike lane or extra wide paved shoulder is the better choice!

  • Generally avoid rush hours for more serious riding (unless you are commuting by bike obviously!)

  • Generally avoid School Zones at pick-up drop off times (You have never seen more driver idiocy than at these times) - Drivers completely lose their minds!

  • Think carefully about light conditions - riding directly into a rising or setting sun? Cars coming up may not see you, at all!

  • Signal EVERYTHING and EVERY move you are going to do. Be ridiculous about it!

  • At road pinch points - always check what’s going behind you and what’s going on ahead of you, and anticipate what will be happening in 5 sec.

  • When you can, ytu and make eye contact with drivers!

  • Sometimes these pinch points are “virtual” - two cars going opposite directions on a two lane road, and reaching that crossing point at the same point you do. Drivers have no idea how fast we can be going - 30kmh - 50kmh. So even if they see you, they will be WAY off in their anticipation of this event!. Again - be thinking 5 sec ahead.

  • In heavier slower moving traffic in urban areas where you are more or less moving along at the flow of the traffic speed, and there is no bike lane - ride with confidence, and take your space (But signal EVERYTHING - see previous)

  • Ride in groups as regularly as you can

  • Ride Gravel roads . . . WAY less traffic!

  • When a car gives me that 1.5m buffer or more space (In some jurisdictions now this is a law), I almost always bow give them a friendly wave

23

My comments are absolutely true for NYC. In fact, NY DOT did a great job studying this and did more analysis than most states. And my comments have nothing to do with victim blaming. It is stepping back and looking at the data rather than the N=1 anecdotes. Your response is actually anecdotal and what the OP is calling out in the theme of this thread.

The fact is, >50% of vehicle-cyclist deaths occur when the rider was confirmed to not have a helmet while only 16% of the deaths were confirmed to have a helmet is an alarming disparity. Any anecdotes about pictures of a crash are irrelevant and do not alter that fact. Now, there is a lot more analysis to make that one metric actionable, but a simple rational man test would suggest that wearing a freakin’ helmet would eliminate a crapton of deaths.

24

My comments are absolutely true for NYC. In fact, NY DOT did a great job studying this and did more analysis than most states. And my comments have nothing to do with victim blaming. It is stepping back and looking at the data rather than the N=1 anecdotes. Your response is actually anecdotal and what the OP is calling out in the theme of this thread.

The fact is, >50% of vehicle-cyclist deaths occur when the rider was confirmed to not have a helmet while only 16% of the deaths were confirmed to have a helmet is an alarming disparity. Any anecdotes about pictures of a crash are irrelevant and do not alter that fact. Now, there is a lot more analysis to make that one metric actionable, but a simple rational man test would suggest that wearing a freakin’ helmet would eliminate a crapton of deaths.

I live here, and I’ve read the report you are referring to. It may have extensive data (I can’t really say) but it lacks proper analysis. The authors fell into the same trap that so many others fall into (and you appear to be predisposed to) when looking for data that supports their position - They did not evaluate causation vs correlation.

In a nutshell they did not answer this question: Does wearing a helmet make you safer in an accident, or do people who wear helmets do things that make them less likely to get in an accident?

25

My comments are absolutely true for NYC. In fact, NY DOT did a great job studying this and did more analysis than most states. And my comments have nothing to do with victim blaming. It is stepping back and looking at the data rather than the N=1 anecdotes. Your response is actually anecdotal and what the OP is calling out in the theme of this thread.

The fact is, >50% of vehicle-cyclist deaths occur when the rider was confirmed to not have a helmet while only 16% of the deaths were confirmed to have a helmet is an alarming disparity. Any anecdotes about pictures of a crash are irrelevant and do not alter that fact. Now, there is a lot more analysis to make that one metric actionable, but a simple rational man test would suggest that wearing a freakin’ helmet would eliminate a crapton of deaths.

I live here, and I’ve read the report you are referring to. It may have extensive data (I can’t really say) but it lacks proper analysis. The authors fell into the same trap that so many others fall into (and you appear to be predisposed to) when looking for data that supports their position - They did not evaluate causation vs correlation.

In a nutshell they did not answer this question: Does wearing a helmet make you safer in an accident, or do people who wear helmets do things that make them less likely to get in an accident?
Exactly. The way he’s stating it, we could say that almost 100% of cyclists killed were not wearing yellow ribbons. It’s startling but true - almost none!

26

In a nutshell they did not answer this question: Does wearing a helmet make you safer in an accident, or do people who wear helmets do things that make them less likely to get in an accident?They did not, from a data science point of view. And that was not their inten. And I did not either, but probably failed to word it effectively. However, this is not at all like the seemingly disconnected data that epidemiologists look at to figure out health morbidity and mortality. At some point, just apply common sense. Maybe there is not causation expressed in the data, but come on… There is a massive difference there, and a helmet’s one job is to protect your head.

Here is another way to think about this… What would you do if you wanted to reduce your personal risk of injury or death by vehicle and then that of your fellow man? Well, if it were me, I would look at the data to see what factors have the highest associations with crashes and deaths, and avoid those things. For example…
77% of bicyclist deaths are males over 20 years old83% of dead cyclists were not wearing helmets or helmet was unknown22% had BAC >0.0852% deaths occurred at night75% deaths occurred in cities64% occurred at non-intersections59% of deaths occurred on “other major roads”
I cannot change my age or sex, so those are off the table. And, I like to ride steadily, so I won’t choose ride only at intersections. So, the personal safety conclusions are, in priority order:
Always wear a helmetDon’t ride in citiesAvoid major roads with faster and higher volume trafficDon’t ride at nightDon’t drink
These are relatively easy on a personal level and would likely have a massive benefit to individual crash and death avoidance. Oh yeah, and get a Garmin Varia radar to improve awareness of fast approaching cars, especially on those busy roads.

Then, sliding to an activist point-of-view is more challenging. The obvious focus is awareness to people in cities to be careful and always wear their helmets. Then, analyze root causes of accidents in cities and improve design where possible. Rural deaths probably mostly happen on those “other major roads,” and those are the ones where us triathletes and cyclists are most vulnerable. The activist actions there could be promoting bike lanes or alternate trails to avoid the major roads altogether.

None of this is normalized to rider miles, population, etc. But even still, applying simple common sense is not rocket science. If a massive percentage of deaths are cyclists not wearing helmets, riding in cities, those are probably not us. Those are probably people riding bikes for transportation or couriers in cities. On the other hand, what about the high percentages of deaths not at intersections and on that category of Other Major Roads. Those are likely the place where triathletes and cycling enthusiasts are at most risk. That is where I would focus my attention in both avoidance and caution.

Exactly. The way he’s stating it, we could say that almost 100% of cyclists killed were not wearing yellow ribbons. It’s startling but true - almost none!You are joking, right? That is not what I said at all.

Do you wear a helmet when you ride? I am sure you do. Why are you arguing against wearing a helmet? /mic

27

Kind of took my breath away reading this.

Of course the statistic for car drivers killed by cyclists is equally exceedingly high.
I am of course assuming you are not a troll.

28

“At some point, just apply common sense.”

You lose all credibility as soon as you make that statement. More words doesn’t change the facts - you are looking for data that fits your preconceived opinion.

29

My comments are absolutely true for NYC. In fact, NY DOT did a great job studying this and did more analysis than most states. And my comments have nothing to do with victim blaming. It is stepping back and looking at the data rather than the N=1 anecdotes. Your response is actually anecdotal and what the OP is calling out in the theme of this thread.

The fact is, >50% of vehicle-cyclist deaths occur when the rider was confirmed to not have a helmet while only 16% of the deaths were confirmed to have a helmet is an alarming disparity. Any anecdotes about pictures of a crash are irrelevant and do not alter that fact. Now, there is a lot more analysis to make that one metric actionable, but a simple rational man test would suggest that wearing a freakin’ helmet would eliminate a crapton of deaths.

Unless of course there is a difference in the groups that correlates with helmet usage that accounts for some of the difference too.

30

Not a troll. I am a get-to-the-facts guy. The thing I find most alarming is the number of deaths without helmets. In the 4 years that I have been into this, I have never seen an enthusiast rider on the road without a helmet. But I have seen many casual riders or families all riding without helmets. These must be the people getting hit, and that is very sad.

31

You lose all credibility as soon as you make that statement. More words doesn’t change the facts - you are looking for data that fits your preconceived opinion.You are arguing agains helmet usage, which is insane. Do you honestly believe that helmets played no role I survival in the 50% confirmed without helmets versus the 16% with helmets. Of course not. You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

32

You are joking, right? That is not what I said at all.

Do you wear a helmet when you ride? I am sure you do. Why are you arguing against wearing a helmet? /mic

A - I’m not joking.

B. On yellow ribbons - I’m showing how your stat about helmets preventing death is useless without the denominator - the % of cyclists who we’re killed who weren’t wearing helmets. And also not controlling for the other issues you mention. I heard it even more sharply where the data from one pro-helmet study showed the helmets reduced broken limbs too! Because the people wearing helmets were being safer in other ways.

C. Most of the time when riding bikes. Not all the time. (PS - did you look at the images I posted about the person hit by a car? Do you think a helmet would have helped her?)

D. I’m not arguing against wearing a helmet. Did I ever say that? I’m saying that:

E. Helmets are nowhere near as effective against death as you make them out to be.

F. Your blaming dead cyclists for not wearing helmets is grossly offensive.

33

There you go again - drawing the incorrect conclusion from data. I’m not against wearing a helmet. I wear one every time I ride outside. I encourage others. I teach bike safety.

I trying to tell you that your ability to critically evaluate data is pretty much non-existent - just like the authors of the NYC study you are hanging your hat on.

34

Not a troll. I am a get-to-the-facts guy. The thing I find most alarming is the number of deaths without helmets. In the 4 years that I have been into this, I have never seen an enthusiast rider on the road without a helmet. But I have seen many casual riders or families all riding without helmets. These must be the people getting hit, and that is very sad.

I live in a relatively rural area on main street in a small town. Main street has a shoulder and runs for about 10 miles or so in total connecting a small city and 3 small towns, so it’s probably the most popular road to cycle on given almost no other roads have shoulders. I see tons of cyclists. Casual riders, or DUI riders, and kids/teenagers are the ones I see without helmets. If someone is riding on the wrong side of the road it’s inevitably one of those sorts of riders not a “cyclist’”.

35

In a nutshell they did not answer this question: Does wearing a helmet make you safer in an accident, or do people who wear helmets do things that make them less likely to get in an accident?They did not, from a data science point of view. And that was not their inten. And I did not either, but probably failed to word it effectively. However, this is not at all like the seemingly disconnected data that epidemiologists look at to figure out health morbidity and mortality. At some point, just apply common sense. Maybe there is not causation expressed in the data, but come on… There is a massive difference there, and a helmet’s one job is to protect your head.

Here is another way to think about this… What would you do if you wanted to reduce your personal risk of injury or death by vehicle and then that of your fellow man? Well, if it were me, I would look at the data to see what factors have the highest associations with crashes and deaths, and avoid those things. For example…
77% of bicyclist deaths are males over 20 years old83% of dead cyclists were not wearing helmets or helmet was unknown22% had BAC >0.0852% deaths occurred at night75% deaths occurred in cities64% occurred at non-intersections59% of deaths occurred on “other major roads”
I cannot change my age or sex, so those are off the table. And, I like to ride steadily, so I won’t choose ride only at intersections. So, the personal safety conclusions are, in priority order:
Always wear a helmetDon’t ride in citiesAvoid major roads with faster and higher volume trafficDon’t ride at nightDon’t drink
These are relatively easy on a personal level and would likely have a massive benefit to individual crash and death avoidance. Oh yeah, and get a Garmin Varia radar to improve awareness of fast approaching cars, especially on those busy roads.

Then, sliding to an activist point-of-view is more challenging. The obvious focus is awareness to people in cities to be careful and always wear their helmets. Then, analyze root causes of accidents in cities and improve design where possible. Rural deaths probably mostly happen on those “other major roads,” and those are the ones where us triathletes and cyclists are most vulnerable. The activist actions there could be promoting bike lanes or alternate trails to avoid the major roads altogether.

None of this is normalized to rider miles, population, etc. But even still, applying simple common sense is not rocket science. If a massive percentage of deaths are cyclists not wearing helmets, riding in cities, those are probably not us. Those are probably people riding bikes for transportation or couriers in cities. On the other hand, what about the high percentages of deaths not at intersections and on that category of Other Major Roads. Those are likely the place where triathletes and cycling enthusiasts are at most risk. That is where I would focus my attention in both avoidance and caution.

Exactly. The way he’s stating it, we could say that almost 100% of cyclists killed were not wearing yellow ribbons. It’s startling but true - almost none!You are joking, right? That is not what I said at all.

Do you wear a helmet when you ride? I am sure you do. Why are you arguing against wearing a helmet? /mic

I think the helmet piece is still not a valid indicator. I get that’s where the numbers are and it logically makes sense but it doesn’t really prove root cause. I would hazard to guess the people not wearing a helmet are willing to take more risks in general. A bike helmet costs next to nothing so it’s not a cost issue. People are just fine with that risk, if they’re fine with that risk then they’re fine with taking more risks when riding, likely increasing the chance of an accident. Not necessarily causing the accident but you’re taking more risks so you will have a higher of something going wrong in general.

I think the car running down cyclists paranoia thing is way over blown. In 12-13 years now I’ve had maybe one close driver that I was actually mad about. Do people pass close, sure but it’s just because they don’t realize how close they are. In general drivers suck, but ive never had a constant experience of shitty drivers that has had me close to thinking I’m going to sit my ass on zwift and never ride outside again. If it ever gets to that point I’ll just sell my gear.

36

At some point, just apply common sense. We have much better information than your “common sense.” Here is an example:

Cycling fatalities: When a helmet is useless and when it might save your life

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059?via%3Dihub

From the abstract::
Autopsy reports of 119 cyclists who died in two Czech regions between 1995 and 2013 as a result of traffic crashes were studied. In all the study cases, pathologists analyzed whether a helmet could have helped the cyclists survive the crash or not. The crash circumstances from the police reports were then evaluated.

The results indicate that helmets could have helped the most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles and in certain cases when an intracranial injury was the primary cause of death. Altogether 44 cyclists (37%) from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.

Helmets would not have helped cyclists in most high-energetic crashes, especially when motor-vehicles or trains were involved. Some rear-end crashes outside urban areas also resulted in injuries when a helmet would not have helped.

37

Cherry picking data is always fun.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html

Here’s some cherry picked data I particularly like.
As with all data, it’s in the presentation.

What is far more dangerous is the condition of the roads, number bike paths/lanes and drivers actions.
All the data shows that.

38

We have much better information than your “common sense.” Here is an example:

Cycling fatalities: When a helmet is useless and when it might save your life

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517302059?via%3Dihub

From the abstract::
Autopsy reports of 119 cyclists who died in two Czech regions between 1995 and 2013 as a result of traffic crashes were studied. In all the study cases, pathologists analyzed whether a helmet could have helped the cyclists survive the crash or not. The crash circumstances from the police reports were then evaluated.

The results indicate that helmets could have helped the most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles and in certain cases when an intracranial injury was the primary cause of death. Altogether 44 cyclists (37%) from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.

Helmets would not have helped cyclists in most high-energetic crashes, especially when motor-vehicles or trains were involved. Some rear-end crashes outside urban areas also resulted in injuries when a helmet would not have helped.

Interesting. In 30 plus years of riding on the road I have never been hit by a motor vehicle. I had a dog knock me down by running into the side of my bike wanting to play, but that is about the only time I’ve been on the pavement when it wasn’t a result of my own clumsiness or in a race with other cyclists.

The one exception was 10 years ago when I was rolling out with the bike club right after it had rained. We were crossing a set of RR tracks that crossed the street at an angle and we were riding slowly and talking. My front wheel fell in the gap between the rail and the pavement and I went down hard on my side, slamming the back of my helmet into the other rail. It was a middle of the cost index Specialized helmet and it shattered on impact. It stayed in mostly one piece but it was spider webbed over the entire shell.

Would that simple low speed fall have killed me with no helmet? Hard to say. But if the helmet took that much damage on a seemingly low energy impact I question how much help it would be in high energy impact. It doesn’t change my habit of riding with a helmet but it certainly has convinced me that the helmet is the least important safety item in play when I’m on the road. Number 1 is what that helmet is supposedly protecting.

39

Good list Fleck.

Couple more: Cornering can be dicey, so I’m learning to take it easier and yield more than go. Acknowledge someone who waits for me to go by.

40

The big issue I have with bicycle statistics is it needs to be ‘per mile’ or ‘per hour’ because the sheer amount of drivers is greater; in some areas maybe 1000 to 1. You add miles to that it may be 10,000 to 1 (in rural areas). In SoCal we have roughly 50 motorists die each week and 2 cyclists, and there is no way there is 25/1 ratio of distance travelled. I don’t know what that is but its at least 100/1.

I do think we need to ignore statistics to a point and eliminate gross negligence on the cyclists’ part. I don’t want to victim blame, but running a red, riding drunk in oncoming traffic, those are very common deaths which are not on the car. If you’re an idiot on a bike you pay the consequences, if you’re in a car you don’t. But I’ll also say many of these deaths have twisted stories. Once the driver gets over the grief of killing someone they realize a good story is the only thing keeping them out of jail, and many people will side with them.

**I think the other issue with bike safety is the fear mongering of the youtube generation. Every crash is posted on social media, many close calls are; it skews the reality of what’s actually out there. **That being said, it only takes 1.

We are more likely to die in a car either as a driver or passenger. Yet, that won’t make the news/youtube like a cyclist/pedestrian. We often fixate on the unusual causes of death rather than the common ones.

Cycling/pedestrian deaths might also justify the “couch potato” who stays at home and for drivers/passengers not to walk or ride a bike to work (in the US). Hate to say it; but staying off the road might not work to our advantage statistically. More riders could mean more public safety/awareness for those riders.

It would be helpful to have per miles/hours numbers. Yet, with cars most accidents happen close to home and not on long drives. Someone being preoccupied about something other than what they are doing is often the culprit.