g.park I'm glad your and your dad's injuries weren't worse. However, from a scientific point of view, it's impossible to know whether the helmet had a significant effect in the outcome. You "believe", not "know".
Is there any defensive cycling lesson you can take away from either of those accidents, that would help you prevent something similar from happening in the futur?
That was what I found with USA statistics. You're right, in New Zealand, cyclists don't do as well.
Looks like low numbers of cyclists, and driver at-fault accidents on 70km/hr+ roads are your biggest issues.
Unfortunately, helmets are practically useless for those kind of accidents, which explains why there's been no appreciable drop in fatalities since the '94 helmet law.
One interesting point the statistics show, is that at slower speed car/bike accidents (like you would expect in an urban center like utrecht) have a 95% cyclist survival rate. But 70kph+ accidents have a near 0 survival rate.
It's really not a big deal, in spite of our conditioned response to helmetless riders.
Bike helmets have very debated efficacy. They aren't designed to stand up to anything more than a straight fall at 10mph or less.
You're more likely to sustain a head injury in your kitchen, or falling from a step-stool.
Most countries with mandatory helmet laws end up with the unintended consequence of reduced ridership, and with fewer cyclists come increased fatalities (decreased driver awareness of cyclists vs safety in numbers).
And in the end it's all rather silly. Cycling is safer than driving, even when you're not factoring in the health benefits. When you include the benefits, getting on your bike almost always increases your lifespan (provided you aren't riding recklessly, drunk, etc)
Felix Do we even have any evidence that the frequency of child kidnappings by strangers in any way correlates to the number of children being allowed to play unsupervised at public parks?
I like all the pranks, but must admit, I find it disappointing that you don't get to see any reactions to the prank... what's the fun of the prank then?
I remember a time when I was pro-spanking too. And I rolled my eyes at people who called spanking 'violent'.
However, let's cut the crap.
Spanking is violent. Not as violent as belting, whipping, or other violence we used to inflict on children. We evolved. And your average person who grew up with little-to-no spanking is much less violent now than a 19th-century 'gentleman' who grew up being beaten regularly, and thought it was ok to beat his servants, spouse and children.
Spanking is unnecessary. You can raise respectful, kind children without spanking. Watch Nanny 911 or SuperNanny if you're in denial about the efficacy of non-violent discipline.
Spanking is a false-dichotomy. Just because there are hoodlums today that grew up in permissive homes doesn't mean that spanking would have fixed them. It's not a choice between spanking and permissive neglect.
Is there any defensive cycling lesson you can take away from either of those accidents, that would help you prevent something similar from happening in the futur?
Looks like low numbers of cyclists, and driver at-fault accidents on 70km/hr+ roads are your biggest issues.
Unfortunately, helmets are practically useless for those kind of accidents, which explains why there's been no appreciable drop in fatalities since the '94 helmet law.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Cyclist%20Crash%20Statistics%2009.pdf
One interesting point the statistics show, is that at slower speed car/bike accidents (like you would expect in an urban center like utrecht) have a 95% cyclist survival rate. But 70kph+ accidents have a near 0 survival rate.
Bike helmets have very debated efficacy. They aren't designed to stand up to anything more than a straight fall at 10mph or less.
You're more likely to sustain a head injury in your kitchen, or falling from a step-stool.
Most countries with mandatory helmet laws end up with the unintended consequence of reduced ridership, and with fewer cyclists come increased fatalities (decreased driver awareness of cyclists vs safety in numbers).
And in the end it's all rather silly. Cycling is safer than driving, even when you're not factoring in the health benefits. When you include the benefits, getting on your bike almost always increases your lifespan (provided you aren't riding recklessly, drunk, etc)
http://www.klaaskids.org/pg_cs_childsafety.htm
Do we even have any evidence that the frequency of child kidnappings by strangers in any way correlates to the number of children being allowed to play unsupervised at public parks?
However, let's cut the crap.
Spanking is violent. Not as violent as belting, whipping, or other violence we used to inflict on children. We evolved. And your average person who grew up with little-to-no spanking is much less violent now than a 19th-century 'gentleman' who grew up being beaten regularly, and thought it was ok to beat his servants, spouse and children.
Spanking is unnecessary. You can raise respectful, kind children without spanking. Watch Nanny 911 or SuperNanny if you're in denial about the efficacy of non-violent discipline.
Spanking is a false-dichotomy. Just because there are hoodlums today that grew up in permissive homes doesn't mean that spanking would have fixed them. It's not a choice between spanking and permissive neglect.