Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are far more cyclists in the Netherlands so it's unclear how much of the higher death rate is from lack of helmet use. Note:
If accurate, that's many times more than American rates.
Taken out of context (to prove a point that isn't there?): Here's the post I was responding to. The poster is Dutch, and s/he provided the stats:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oulous
Yes helmets are protective, you can not dispute that but do they decrease the number of accidents?
Try to see the difference here.
You are talking about injury while I am talking about accidents.
I am not on the side of yes or no helmets but the math of statistics, risk and human behavior. In general many things we do to make ourselves safe cause us to be more reckless.
Currently I live in Amsterdam in the Netherlands and no one, I mean no one wears a helmet here for day to day biking.
Nationally the total of bicycle accident deaths hovers around 200.
In Amsterdam about 6 people die in bike-related accidents yearly.
16 million Dutch own 18 million bikes.
About half the population of the NL rides a bike once a day.
The average distance traveled by bike per person per day was 2.5km in 2006.
The bicycle is used for almost a quarter of all journeys, and 35% of journeys below 7.5km.
By those stats the deaths per year are very low. If you can instill a culture of biking then helmets are not necessary as it becomes like any other chance death
you might have.
For example you can be walking on a 3 foot high wall, fall off and die. If you were wearing a helmet you probably wouldn't die but you don't need a helmet to
walk on a wall.
This poster also feels injury doesn't count, just deaths. I'd like to send him/her (I think it's a guy) to a brain-injury unit of a hospital to volunteer, maybe emptying bedpans for people who can no longer control themselves.-
I was only highlighting the total number of Dutch cyclists. My point was that you can't death (or injury) stats unless you adjust for the number of cyclists and frequency of cycling.
Taken out of context (to prove a point that isn't there?): Here's the post I was responding to. The poster is Dutch, and s/he provided the stats:
This poster also feels injury doesn't count, just deaths. I'd like to send him/her (I think it's a guy) to a brain-injury unit of a hospital to volunteer, maybe emptying bedpans for people who can no longer control themselves.-
Well I think the Dutch culture of biking is just way different. The number of car/bike collisions is a lot lower too. One reason is there was a public campaign about child deaths and cars in the 70s. Amsterdam children fighting cars in 1972 | BICYCLE DUTCH
After that road safety was prioritized, and the overall death rates dropped.
The American emphasis on safety over the last several decades has led to a reduction in annual traffic fatalities from 44,000 a year in 1975 to 37,000 a year in 2008. This is an accomplishment to be proud of and is particularly impressive in light of our population growth over that period.
During the same period, however, the Dutch have reduced their fatalities from 3200 a year to 800. If we calculate the rate per 1000 people, the Dutch fatality rate is now only 40% of the American rate. This is remarkable, particularly when one considers that in 1975 the Dutch fatality rate was 20% higher than that of the US!
So less people wear helmets, because the roads were designed to be more accommodating to non-car usage. So it is less scary, cars are going slower, so the injury risk is lower. And of course, there are physically separated bike lanes, so the bikes mix with the cars a lot less. Then the potential accidents are with other similar sized and speed vehicles (other bikes).
Well I think the Dutch culture of biking is just way different. The number of car/bike collisions is a lot lower too. One reason is there was a public campaign about child deaths and cars in the 70s. Amsterdam children fighting cars in 1972 | BICYCLE DUTCH
After that road safety was prioritized, and the overall death rates dropped.
So less people wear helmets, because the roads were designed to be more accommodating to non-car usage. So it is less scary, cars are going slower, so the injury risk is lower. And of course, there are physically separated bike lanes, so the bikes mix with the cars a lot less. Then the potential accidents are with other similar sized and speed vehicles (other bikes).
A car/bike accident is not the only type of accident a cyclist can have. This is an anecdote, but it is illustrative: My neighbor, a (former) big-time biker, was biking to work. He was going down a fairly steep hill; I'm not sure what the grade is but it's long (at least a mile) and steep. At the bottom, he slid in some gravel, crashed, and was in the hospital/rehab for 6 wks. He was wearing a helmet, without which he probably would not be able to take care of himself. His wife had the cracked helmet on display at a party she gave for the neighbors who helped them while he was recovering. If your head hits concrete, the concrete will win.
A car/bike accident is not the only type of accident a cyclist can have. This is an anecdote, but it is illustrative: My neighbor, a (former) big-time biker, was biking to work. He was going down a fairly steep hill; I'm not sure what the grade is but it's long (at least a mile) and steep. At the bottom, he slid in some gravel, crashed, and was in the hospital/rehab for 6 wks. He was wearing a helmet, without which he probably would not be able to take care of himself. His wife had the cracked helmet on display at a party she gave for the neighbors who helped them while he was recovering. If your head hits concrete, the concrete will win.
Yup, it is true. But if you have special "bike highways" and the like, things are much safer. Road design is critical too.
So according to you, 80% of Dutch citizens don't value their brains and are stupid?
Not if they don't wear helmets. My neighbor was not hit by a car, he slid in gravel and his was a top-flight biker. Why don't you go down to Craig Hospital and take a little tour, see if you want to end up like that!
Okay then--just went and checked, and in 2011, 4432 pedestrians and 677 bicyclists were killed when cars crashed into them. Which raises another point: Why don't we require pedestrians to wear helmets?
Because that isn't what helmets are designed for.
If you're hit by a semi going 55 mph, a helmet won't do much for you. You might as well not wear one since you're going to die either way. The majority of bicycle injuries don't involve any motorized vehicles at all. Helmets are designed mostly for low-speed impacts you'd sustain falling off a bike to only a portion of one small part of your body. Also, we don't require pedestrians to wear helmets for the same reasons we don't require bicyclists (adults) to wear helmets. We require people to wear seat belts and new cars to have airbags and children to wear bicycle helmets. Some states require motorcyclists to wear helmets. We do this because we are a nanny state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.