Seat belt laws, mandatory air bags, and increased safety standards have not discouraged driving, even though they certainly reinforce the perception that driving or riding in a car is dangerous. Do fewer people ski now that helmets — something you never would have seen on a mountain 15 or 20 years ago — are a common sight at ski resorts everywhere? Football doesn’t seem to be losing any popularity because one needs to wear a helmet and pad when playing. I think a focus on wearing helmets misses the point.

Despite the dangers inherent in driving — and the need, by law, to wear a seat belt or make new cars comply with safety requirements — people still drive because the roadways look and appear safe and because almost all civil infrastructure is built to cater to their use. Streets are built for drivers with massive signs, painted lanes, separated from the rest of a city in many cases. Parking lots are vast, plentiful, secure, and generally free or inexpensive. It may or may not be in reality, but driving APPEARS safe and convenient. The need to take safety precautions is almost secondary to everything else about driving! Most people are more interested in the size of their cup holders and their stereo system than they are in their car’s safety performance.

But safety is the PRIMARY concern for most riders and the number one fear of most people who might be thinking about riding but don’t. Tell someone you bike to work and the first thing they’ll ask is, “Is it safe?” Biking does not appear safe to many people, so they don’t ride, helmet or no.

So, putting aside the argument of whether or not helmets are effective — which I’m sure this discussion will inevitably devolve into — I don’t think encouraging people to wear them discourages riding. If only that was the biggest problem!

There are plenty of communities with safe streets and bike trails where people ride AND where helmets. What really holds people back in New York, other urban areas, and even in a lot of suburbs, is a lack of safe bike lanes, few places to securely park one’s bike, lax traffic enforcement, hostile drivers, and the general appearance of biking as an unsafe activity. Those are the real issues. Focusing on helmets leads us to a “blame the victim” mentality that has been discussed on this blog ad nauseum.

I think Doug said a lot of what I was going to say. But I think these are two different issues: (1) Helmet use should be encouraged, just like we wouldn’t dream of ignoring whether people wear seat belts while engaging in a risky activity.

On the other hand, (2) these memorial rides could indeed have a chilling effect on biking. I’d much rather see the memorial energy be used positively to work for safer streets for bikers. Maybe that’s the goal, but I’m not sure I see how a memorial ride furthers it.

If it was just alarmism that would be be one thing. But I for one personally know more people who have been killed on their bikes than killed in cars. So I don’t think emphasizing safety is unreasonable, or that we shouldn’t talk about it because its a downer. As if the ostrich approach was even possible in the age of mass communication.

The safest bikes — without considering cars — are recumbents because they are low to ground and the rider has a shorter distance to fall and is less likely to go headfirst over the handlebars. They are also the most efficient because of the inherent streamlining. Cars, truck, and buses make then impractical on New York City streets for safety considerations.

Recumbent tricycles are perhaps the safest cycles — again, ignoring the dangers from cars — except for the possible tipping from going too fast on turns and bad roads. Adding electric power makes these vehicles usuable by virtually everyone, so that having cycling on New York City roads without providing complete protection from cars, buses, and trucks is a major accessibility issue contrary to policies, laws, and interventions protecting the disabled.

It is only partially meaningful to compare bicyclist safety with other modes of transportation. Bicycling improves health overall, even accounting for collisions/accidents, according to a “Cycling: Towards Health and Safety” from the British Medical Association 1992. This effect is not present for other modes except perhaps walking; but walking takes too long for many trips.

http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/safety-in-numbers

#7 Tank (regarding Ghost Bikes)

1. They serve as reminders of dangerous locations as I recently watched a tow truck rapidly cross in front of me on the West Side bike path near where the doctor was killed (by such a dangerous action) and the Ghost Bike remains.

2. Hopefully, they will serve in part at least, to mitigate the high level of passive complicity allowing these extremely dangerous conditions to continue and perhaps should be extended to those pedestrians killed by cars (if this does not exist already) which is a much larger number in this city.

Yes. There is so much emphasis on safety that it often dominates discussions about riding bicycles. In this way it discourages riding and portrays the activity as much more dangerous than it is. As many people know, the more people that ride the safer it is. What’s dangerous is driving an hour or more every day. Get on your bike!

I’m also with Copenhagenize on this point. And I’m so tired of this argument. Tank and Alex said it well. More riders means more awareness of cyclists by drivers and that means safety. Scaring people with horror stories about bike accidents and mandating helmet laws will only dissuade potential cyclists. (Comparing cycling with football is just silly)
Wear one if you want to, I won’t tease you. . . but don’t preach to me about wearing a helmet. Seriously.
I don’t know if this is relevant but you don’t even have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle in Pennsylvania.

People look at the way cars drive and the conditions of the streets to gauge how safe it is to cycle in this city. Long and detailed practical discussions about safety with broad implementation will rapidly improve the cycling and pedestrian environment.

Extensive cycle tracks down the center of the city’s large avenues (including the outer areas) where cars tend to drive too fast and recklessly would probably be a great way to start to immediately improve the actual and perceived safety of cycling in this city.

NYC needs some serious traffic calming. Give the streets to the people. Cars don’t belong in city centers.

Are there any figures related to bicycle injuries and deaths from nations where bicycling is considered mainstream?

I’m not going to wade into this helmet debate (I always wear one), but I had to laugh to stop from crying when I saw this item from the Streetsblog network:

Missouri Bans Texting for Drivers 22 and Younger

Does that mean it’s not a bad idea for people 23 and older to text while driving? Are older texters more responsible about how they take their eyes off the road?

I think I’ll keep that helmet on (OK, I lied about not wading in, but I’ll bet drivers in Copenhagen or Amsterdam don’t text while driving, and they don’t drive their SUVs down city streets at 60 mph, either). Not that the helmet would save me from that kind of driver.

Thanks Andy. Interesting numbers.

I wish there were an equivalent of ghost bikes for killings of pedestrians.

#27 Annie, “If we’re looking to get more older people, school kids and parents riding bicycles, ghost bikes’ constant re-enforcement that CYCLING IS DEADLY, just doesn’t help. ”

Response:

Cycling is deadly and I cycle all the time. City cyclists have to constantly be aware of the grave danger otherwise they can be killed. It is a lie and foolish to say that it is not dangerous, or ignore it, or make believe it is not dangerous. And, people have to lobby to make it safe. It is just that simple.

Ghost bikes serve a very useful purpose. And, if you like, they can be retired them when the streets are safe which, is not now.

Many people have the coordination, reflexes, conditioning, and youth to continually dodge the bullet and cycle the city in cavalier ways. Many others do not and can be seriously hurt or killed if they do not take the extreme care that is warranted under the current conditions which will improve tremendously as more people cycle.

I agree with Alex Ihnen. The problem is that safety is such a lowest common denominator topic. Anyone who needs something to say can always repeat a few safety tips. I urge bike advocates and bike writers to try harder, and work on the other points we need to make.

Gecko, maybe you should just slow down. You’re making me laugh with talk about
“coordination, reflexes, conditioning, and youth to continually dodge the bullet”

Geez. Do you ride a fixed gear or something?

Ha!.. . sorry if I caused you any offense! Fashionably late I presume.

The current global economic collapse (really, when a nation is hemorraghing 500,000-plus job losses per month, with no end in sight, and no jobs available to absorb these losses, one cannot call this a recession, it is a depression) and peak oil are going to make more Americans take to getting about on bicycles, and we’ll see fewer cars on the road, for the cost of the car, insurance, and its maintenance will reveal the absurdity of that mode of transportation for getting about town.

This is hilarious concerning the helmet discussion.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html
By the way, lots of good points here all around. I enjoyed this!

The answer to Sarah’s question is that in a city where the majority of people don’t own cars, and a significant minority don’t have driver’s licenses it is important for newcomers to cycling to learn some traffic skills and knowledge (I’m avoiding the snooze word “safety” here) so that they will have the confidence to stick with it. If one picked up their traffic skills information from simply watching NYC cyclists, one would learn all the wrong ideas about how to avoid crashes, be courteous, and be a good ambassador for cycling. I’ve heard way too many would be cyclists say “I’d like to try that, but traffic scares me.” Certainly Streetsblog efforts to tame traffic and build more bike facilites are an important part of bringing those newcomers into the fold, but giving those would be cyclists accurate information about cyclist errors that cause crashes (and how to avoid them) is just as important. It isn’t all hardware . . . it’s the software too.

And SB isn’t all that great at avoiding “scare” dialogue either, with its constant demonization of all motorists. As a cyclist, the vast majority of motorists I encounter every day are paying attention, following the rules (better than most cyclists do), and watching out for other people’s safety. Rides of silence and ghost bikes also have mixed results in terms of encouraging new cyclists vs. scaring them. So yes, whether you want to call it “skils” or “safety” or “knowledge”, it’s important and makes a difference when cyclists have it & use it.