electric, I have no idea where your “here” is.

A minority of cyclists are helmeted here in Montréal. And with more cyclists in recent years, accident rates have fallen.

Another recent inflammatory anti-helmet article. Which starts to claim helmets cause injuries…

As far as canaries in coal mines go, you may be onto something Vanderbilt, but it’s no secret to me.

I would also be curious to see a daytime/nighttime breakdown of bicycling accidents. This morning (first Monday after the time change) I noticed two cyclists on the way to work, in the dark. Neither had any light or obvious reflector. This was my drive-to-work day. Other days I bicycle in with helmet and good lights.

chrismealy says “Maybe the difference is the hills. Seattle is really, really hilly. It’s easy to go way too fast downhill.” True. Seattle also is often wet, which means the streets are slicker, brakes don’t work as quickly for either cars or bikes, and visibility is poorer, especially in the dark. That’s a lot of added risk factors.

If cyclists routinely ignore stop signs and red lights, maybe we should reconsider whether they should be required to obey them in the same manner as cars. Besides, it makes little sense to have to stop your bike at a vacant intersection, especially if your toes are clipped to the pedals.

To reduce conflicts with other vehicles at intersections, cyclists at a stop sign or red light could simply be required to yield (to quote existing Oregon law) “to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the [cyclist] is moving across or within the intersection.” It’s also reasonable to expect cyclists to yield to pedestrians.

This is what cyclists typically do anyway. It makes little sense to treat bicycles as the legal equivalent of a 3,000-pound mass of steel and glass.

I interviewed a German cyclist who had recently arrived in the UK and her first reaction was to laugh at all the cyclists wearing helmets. Within two weeks she had bought a helmet simply because the driving behaviour felt more threatening and there were less facilities for cyclists compared to Germany. It is breaking this vicious cycle - cycling feels dangerous and is perceived as such(exacerbated by helmets) meaning fewer people want to cycle though more cyclists would mean it would be safer.

As a cyclist here you are very rarely in a situation which can either be perceived as dangerous when cycling, or that is dangerous (there are three types of safety).

And as for cyclists as an indicator ? I covered that before…

No doubt the Dutch fatality rate is reduced by the amazing system of separate bike “freeways” that parallel the main highways between cities.

What’s clear is that the Dutch are just better at cycling. It’s also clear that experience level matters a great deal in cycling safety; in the US experienced cyclists are dramatically less likely than average to have accidents — and the average cyclist is quite inexperienced! So if you truly want to measure the effect of environment, you need to correct for experience level. I have never heard of a study that does so.

The problems grow over time as another generation of children are being driven to school (not walking or cycling) even though they live within a few blocks. Parents tell me that “they’re scared, worried” but those are convenient excuses. Yes it takes time to teach your children how to cycle on dangerous streets and it would be quite helpful to have supportive infrastructure to reduce the fears of other parents.

Mikael at copenhagenize.com (Hembrow links it) wrote a great piece on this this week and how the Danish Safety Council and Cyclist Federation are scaring cyclists with their helmet push. The fewer cyclists on the streets the more dangerous they become for everyone, even for those with helmets.