“You have made a sound decision to purchase your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious. Driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.”

Yes, someone used to manufacture helmets for motorists. (via Copenhagenize)

Ridiculous?

Perhaps not according to a recent study of head injuries in Arizona by the Arizona Department of Health Services. The study found the primary causes of death for closed head injuries were firearms (44%), motor vehicles (21%) and falling (20%).

The motor vehicle causes of death were further broken down as follows:

• 38% pedestrians
• 34% motorcyclists
• 24% motor vehicle occupants
• 4% bicyclists

Apparently we need helmets not only for motorists but pedestrians as well.

So what about the causes of non-fatal closed head injuries? Most of them (47%) are caused by motor vehicle collisions, which again breaks down as follows:

• 67% motor vehicle occupants
• 15% motorcyclists
• 11% pedestrians
• 4% bicyclists

Of course not all non-fatal bicycling-related closed head injuries were due to motor vehicle collisions. According to this study, only half were. Even still, if we double the bicycling numbers, far more motor vehicle occupants receive closed head injuries and far more die from them.

Given this data, why are helmets heavily promoted for bicyclists but not at all for motor vehicle occupants? Why do these helmet campaigns make cycling without a helmet sound unsafe yet we don’t expect motorists to wear them?

And just to be clear, this isn’t about being anti-helmet. This is more of a call to be realistic about cycling safety and against the continous message that cycling is unsafe and always requires a helmet.

We know Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is a friend to bicyclists.

Today he posted a pro-biking entry on his blog entitled Bicycling is only healthy when you ride safely.

It’s clear that bicycling is good for the environment…when it takes vehicles off the road. It’s also clear that bicycling is good for your health…when you practice safety.

May is National Bike Safety Month. As this Administration works to develop environmentally-sound transportation options, making our streets more bike-friendly is high on the list. Our roads and communities must be built to allow people to get around safely outside of their cars, on bike or on foot.

But, as more people take to bicycling, that idea can only be sound when drivers and cyclists help each other share the roads safely.

That’s great to read from the head of the Department of Transportation.

He also included these tips.

Motorists should:

• Recognize that bicyclists have a right to ride on the roadway;
• Stay alert and keep distractions to a minimum;
• Make a complete visual check for bicyclists before entering or leaving a lane of traffic.

But, bicyclists have an obligation as well. They should:

• Ride on the roadway, rather than on sidewalks;
• Follow the same rules of the road as other vehicles;
• Wear a bicycle helmet every time you ride;
• Make yourself visible, day and night.

And because we welcome this pro-bicycling message, we’ll let him slide on the helmet “obligation”.

Andreas Rohl, bike program manager for the city of Copenhagen spoke at this year’s National Bike Summit.

From Bike Portland:

On the topic of safety, Rohl had a particularly memorable insight. Of course it’s important, he said, but it’s even more important to not put too much focus on it. If you tell someone to think of an elephant, he said, they’ll think of an elephant. His point was that if advocates and planners are always talking about safety (which the U.S. is very guilty of) than people especially the ones advocates are trying to attract will assume it’s a dangerous activity.

We’ve brought this up in prior articles as it relates to the constant public message that cyclists must always wear a helmet.

Last month Copenhagenize noted the Dutch Bicycle Council’s collection of positive cycling promotions. Those photos certainly make cycling look safe, accessible, convenient and fun. There’s no lycra and almost no helmets.

Contrast that with the Ride of Silence events that mourn cyclists killed or injured while biking — putting the focus on how unsafe cycling can be.

Does this message encourage more people to ride a bicycle?

Does this message make it more or less likely that parents will let their kids bike to school?

Certainly there’s a time and place to remember our fellow cyclists who’ve been injured or worst. No one is opposed to that.

And that remembrance certainly could be part of an annual (and very positive) blessing of the bikes event. That could encourage more bicycling.

For that we say, “Amen.”

[In the next revision of m-bike, we will be looking at how we portray cycling safety to the non-cycling public despite that not being our target audience.]

If you read the Road Commission for Oakland County web site you’d see their claim that the county has “the safest roads in the world.”

They’re wrong.

To jump to this conclusion, they divided the number of fatalities by 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The more miles driven on the expressways, the safer the rest of the roads look.

And in 2008, 27% of all Oakland County road fatalities were pedestrians and cyclists. To divide those fatalities by the number of vehicle miles traveled is clearly invalid — and it reflects the low priority the Road Commission places on road users who are not inside a motor vehicle.

What the Road Commission should be reporting is the fatality rate based on the population size.

Here are the 2008 fatality rates per 100,000 people (based on 2008 SEMCOG population estimates):

• Oakland County 13
• Macomb County 13
• St. Clair County 18
• Wayne County 20

These are not world class when compared with other countries.

The U.K.’s Department for Transport’s recent report “A Safer Way: Consultation on Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World.” (via How We Drive) compiles road fatality rates for many countries (See the above chart).

Our county rates show we are among the least safe. Oakland and Macomb counties are only marginally better than the U.S. average, yet double the Canadian average.

We’re apparently neck and neck with Bulgaria.

Oakland County clearly does not have the safest roads.

We reported earlier the need for additional study of Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet law. That’s been done.

An interesting study was released last month which models the health benefits of Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet law.

The bottom line: Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet law has adversely affected overall health.

A model is developed which permits the quantitative evaluation of the benefit of bicycle helmet laws. The efficacy of the law is evaluated in terms of the percentage drop in bicycling, the percentage increase in the cost of an accident when not wearing a helmet, and a quantity here called the “bicycling beta.” The approach balances the health benefits of increased safety against the health costs due to decreased cycling.

Using estimates suggested in the literature of the health benefits of cycling, accident rates and reductions in cycling, suggest helmets laws are counterproductive in terms of net health. The model serves to focus the bicycle helmet law debate on overall health as function of key parameters: cycle use, accident rates, helmet protection rates, exercise and environmental benefits.

This study also estimated the health impact of a mandatory U.S. helmet law would cost approximately $5 billion per year.

The idea of a Michigan state law requiring bicycle helmets came up during a 2004 Senate hearing while we were updating Michigan’s bicycle laws. I noted that helmets use should be voluntary. The kid that rides his bike with or without a helmet is far healthier than the kid that doesn’t ride a bike at all. We shouldn’t throw up barriers to having more kids riding bicycles.

Fortunately Michigan does not have a mandatory bicycle helmet law, but some Michigan communities do:

• Adrian (under 15)
• E. Grand Rapids (under 18)
• Farmington Hills (under 16)
• Kensington Metropark (all ages)

Among these, the Kensington helmet requirement is quirky.

The Metroparks don’t require helmets. Milford Township has an ordinance that applies to bicyclists only at Kensington while riding on the paved trail where it’s 10 feet wide. And the helmet must meet the ANSI standard, eventhough there was no ANSI helmet standard from 1998 through 2003.

It appears you do not need to wear a helmet while bicycling on the roads or any unpaved designated bike trails at Kensington.