baltimorespokes

Go here to take action:
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/451/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12388&utm_source=BIKEMORE+General+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=f0feb89dce-February_Newsletter2_1_2013&utm_medium=email

Key paragraphs from the article: https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/02/bike-helmets-reduce-injuries-by-about-10-20.html

The best way to know the effectiveness of a drug or helmet is to get a
representative sample of the population, and then randomly assign them to
the test group or the control group. Such an experiment allows one to
reliably estimate effectiveness subject to a statistical margin of error.
But we don’t know who will be involved in a crash, and if we did, it would
be unethical to tell them whether to wear a helmet. Instead, researchers
collect data after the fact.

In 1989, Thompson et al. obtained data from Seattle hospitals for two
groups of cyclists who went to the hospital after a crash. Only 7% of the
first group wore a helmet, and they all had head injuries. But 24% of the
second group wore helmets, and none of them had head injuries. Assuming
that both groups were the same except for the type of injury they
experienced, these results imply that helmets reduced head injuries by
75%. Thompson et al. realized that the two groups were different, ran
regression analysis on the data to isolate the effects of helmets and
found that helmets were even more effective: 85%.

That study led the researchers to start saying two things that have almost
become mantras among many public safety advocates: “Helmets reduce head
injuries by 85%” and “The most important thing you can do to be safe on a
bike is wear a helmet.”

In the last 24 years, similar studies have found that helmets reduce head
injuries, but to a less extent than in the Seattle Study. A comprehensive
synthesis of all studies in 2001 estimated 53-63% effectiveness, but
because helmets increase neck injuries, the net effectiveness is 41–0%.
Studies in the last decade have estimated that helmets only prevent 20-40%
of potential head injuries, so the most recent synthesis of all studies
ever published finds the helmets reduce head injuries by 30–50% and total
injuries by 10-20%, when you include the increased neck injuries. But we
still hear the refrain “helmets reduce injuries up to 85%!”

Honorable Delegates:

I am a long time bicycle advocate in Baltimore City. I have chaired the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and currently serve on the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. I have testified in Annapolis and worked with the General Assembly and the administration on bicycle access and safety issues. I would like the thank the delegates for their past support for important bicycle safety legislation, such as the three-foot bill and the repeal of mandatory shoulder use.

It may seem strange to hear this from a bicycle safety advocate, but I am strongly opposed to House Bill 339, which would mandate helmet use for adult bicyclists. I am a proponent of helmet use and have participated in helmet education efforts and have helped finance helmet give-away programs, although I think that the measure of additional safety helmets provide has been exaggerated. But encouraging helmet use is a very different thing from banning cycling without a helmet, and I fear that such a ban would actually decrease bicycling safety.

This is counterintuitive, so let me explain. One of the most effective ways to increase the safety of bicyclists is to get more of them on the road. The increased presence of cyclists leads to increased awareness and acceptance by motorists, leading to better driving and fewer crashes. Eventually, the increased numbers reach a critical mass, leading to the extremely safe cycling environments found in the cities of Europe and on the west coast of the US. Preventing crashes in this way is far more important than the marginal amount of protection afforded by a helmet, which only comes into play once a crash has happened. Unfortunately, mandatory helmet laws have been demonstrated to reduce the level of bicycling, sometimes drastically. Such laws also destroy bike-share programs, such as the very successful Capital Bikeshare in the DC area, and the similar systems envisioned for Baltimore and Annapolis. Fewer cyclists mean more dangerous cycling, which leads to even fewer cyclists, a vicious circle if I ever saw one, not to mention the loss of the health benefits of bicycling to both the discouraged would-be cyclist and society at large.

This is not just a matter of “finding a new sport”. Sport cyclists already overwhelmingly use helmets, as they can easily afford them and don’t mind carrying them in the car, along with the bike, out to the trail or country road where they cycle. The cycling which I have spent decades advocating is utility cycling for transportation, sometimes by people who cannot afford anything else. This is where a mandatory helmet law would prove more burdensome.

By all means, encourage helmet use, and give them away if you can find the funding, but please don’t ban helmetless cycling. However well intentioned this is, I fear it would do more harm than good.

Thank you for your consideration,

Greg Hinchliffe

To: members of the House Motor Vehicles & Transportation Subcommittee (https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/com/04env.html#mass )

Subj: HB 445 Overtaking Another Vehicle – Support

MDOT recently released the following "safety" advice through DNR list serve:

The 3-Foot Passing Law – Motorists are now required to give cyclists 3 feet of clear­ance when pass­ing. The 3-foot law has an exemption for roads that are too nar­row to allow 3 feet of clear­ance safely. In this case, drivers are allowed to pass cyclists with less than 3 feet.

What are they saying, if you can’t pass a cyclist safely you can pass unsafely?

Point One:
The 3 foot passing distance does not negate the safe passing requirement. A simplified formula for safe passing is one foot of passing distance for every ten mph. That’s why you can safely park in 7 foot lanes and 12 foot lanes are needed on the freeway. The faster the speed the more separating distance that is needed… that’s safety! A point that MDOT has continually missed since 2010.

Point Two:
If a two lane highway has enough width to pass a cyclists with three feet, the narrow highway exception must apply to something much narrower, which leaves a very narrow one lane highway. There is no way to safely pass a lawful riding cyclist on such a road UNLESS the cyclist is being cooperative in allowing the motorist to pass. Even then slow speeds are required by the passing motorist.

If MDOT does not get the narrow highway exception what hope do we have that the general driving public will get MDOT’s poorly worded version? And if MDOT’s mission is for improved road safety why are they pushing a poorly worded version of the narrow highway exception? How is that going to improve cyclists safety? Is it really going to improve the motorist travel time by MDOT saying when you can’t pass a cyclists you can pass a cyclist… whoops a crash. That’s going to take more time then waiting behind the cyclist until you can safely pass.

Please, until such time that drivers are being unfairly ticketed on one lane highways for violation of the 3 foot law when passing a cyclist cooperatively (everyone doing the best that they can) let’s just drop this exception OK?

Thanks.

[Note: This is rather long so if you are inspired to pick up a point (from here or on your own) and write, please do so. Also note I’ll send this late Monday so any helpful suggestions would be appreciated. Hearing is 2/12 at 1:00 p.m.]
*********************************************************************************
To: members of the House Motor Vehicles & Transportation Subcommittee (https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/com/04env.html#mass )

Subj: HB 339 Required Use of Protective Headgear – Oppose

Let me introduce myself as one of the contributors to the bicycle section of the Maryland Drivers’ Handbook. I am very concerned/involved about about traffic safety especially in regard to cycling.

I’m in a very awkward position in that I do wear a helmet and I encourage others to do so as well but now I have to explain why I don’t support mandatory helmet use. Perhaps I can make my point clearer by switching to another personal safety apparel item…

In public safety circles the issue that get addressed are the ones the ones that have the most adverse effects on society. In Baltimore we have one cycling death a year versus over a hundred deaths by shootings. Police wear bulletproof vest to make them safer, so just imagine how many more lives we could save in Baltimore alone if we required everyone to wear a bulletproof vest! I have found bulletproof vest on-line for roughly the same price as a good helmet, so the burden to individuals is not that great. We could have police at the Inner Harbor issuing warnings that "It is illegal to be outside in Baltimore without a bulletproof vest." Wouldn’t that be great thing to do? Think of all the lives we could save with a mandatory bulletproof vest legislation.

OK, that’s crazy but what is the rational explanation on why that is crazy?

One of the hardest arguments to dispel is "If this would save just one life it will be worth it." – If that was really true we would have mandatory bulletproof vests and everyone would be wearing helmets all the time (more people die from a fall in the home then cyclist fatalities.) The error here falls under the category of "Blaming the victim." People in Baltimore have the expectation that the it is the police responsibility to reduce the number of homicides and shifting the responsibility to the victims by making something like a mandatory bulletproof vest law so now it’s the victims fault if they are dead because they did not wear a bulletproof vest. Similarly, a victim of a motorist error should not lose all compensation for their injuries based solely on the fact that they were not wearing a helmet. The motorcycle helmet law address this issue but not this bill for bicyclists??? That’s just wrong. Not wearing a helmet does not cause a crash, nor does it prevent a crash so why are we now going to be legally barred from recovering damages based solely on not wearing a helmet?

Things to consider to improve cyclists safety that work better then just wearing a helmet

Learn defensive bicycle riding

"Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place," – Dr. Walker (Ref: https://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm )

While Dr. Walker does not state this, there is an inference in his data that learning defensive bicycle riding (or more specifically taking a class by a League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor) will do more good for cyclists’ safety then a helmet alone ever will. A next best option would be to promote MDOT’s Safe Cycling in Maryland handbook. I’ll note that information that this booklet exists and how to get this specific booklet has been removed from SHA’s website, this should be corrected. I will also note that I tried to get a note in the Drivers’ Handbook "For more information on safe cycling request the booklet Safe Cycling in Maryland" but that failed. This information should not be treated like it’s top secret.

Like reducing homicides the police need to take cyclists safety more seriously.

I was amazed to find out that learning traffic laws as they apply to cyclists is an optional course in the police academy and very few of our police officers ever received that training. Leading to crazy ways to find the cyclist at fault by police. In one case a cyclist riding as far right as practicable (as required by law) was killed by a right turning truck (no signals.) But the police found fault with the cyclist road position because "21-1303(d) a person may not operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles." – Did you catch that? The police misapplied motorcycle law to a bicycle as if that overrides specific instructions to a cyclist. I have other evidence that the police were citing numerous cyclists for being "illegally in the road" (a pedestrian violation not a cyclist violation.) I have personally been ordered by police to ride on the sidewalk where sidewalk riding was illegal. I could go on and on about this but I have to ask how can we expect the roads to feel safe when even the authorities get the laws wrong. And just adding a helmet requirement so the police have more excuses to harass cyclists is not going to help.

That no power of suspending Laws or the execution of Laws, unless by, or derived from the Legislature, ought to be exercised, or allowed. – Maryland Declaration Of Rights

Hmm, is singling out laws for bicyclists to be excluded from regular police officers training an act of suspending execution of laws? I’m not enough of a lawyer to say one way or the other but I can say what is going on is outrageous. Even MVA has gotten into the act when introducing our new three foot passing law and concluded "The law says the bicyclist has the responsibility to move aside and let you pass." (Ref: https://www.baltimoresun.com/features/commuting/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1004-20101004,0,6224574.story ) I’ll note "moving aside" is correct for motor vehicles capable of doing the speed limit but are going much slower. But "moving aside" is not correct for cyclists. I could go on with other issues but in short there is a lot of misunderstandings exactly what is the law for bicyclist among so called professionals. I will also point out that it was Michael Dresser and NOT MVA that issued the correction (ref: https://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-11/features/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1011-20101011_1_bicyclist-bike-speed-bike-advocate ). It’s rather sad that a layperson can see the plain text meaning in our laws while "professionals" cannot.

We desperately need to get everyone on the same page as far as cycling laws go and what constitutes safe cycling, this is paramount to safety. And putting more onus on the more vulnerable road user at this time is outrageous in my book.

Free helmets giveaways

I have a resource for getting really cheep bicycle helmets in bulk (and still meet the standards.) Wouldn’t be cool if we could actually work together so these helmets could end up in police cars for the police to give away to helmetless riders instead of issuing warnings for failure to comply with this purposed law?

Conclusion

I know you meant well with this legislation but cycling is a safe activity, certainly a lot safer then walking in Maryland. You do realize that Maryland has earned the 4th highest pedestrian fatality rate in 2009 right? Maybe we should seriously think about making pedestrians wear helmets.

Maryland has yet to make it into the top ten in terms of cycling fatality rates and last time I checked our cycling fatality rate was below average. The big cycling issue for me is we have below average number of cyclists, we need to encourage more cycling for health (Maryland has a high obesity rate) and for cleaner air (too many code red days following really nice days to ride.) Not to mention more cycling makes a better place to live and encourages more tourism. A lot of states are doing a lot better then what we are in this regard, we are below average in our share of bike commuters, this needs to be corrected.

“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1. (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?smid=fb-share#h[ItUCaa,1 )

"After scrapes with motorists [in Takoma Park, Md.], he now mostly drives." – about Obama’s new Chief of Staff (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-plans-to-name-national-security-deputy-as-chief-of-staff.html )

To many cyclists are harassed by motorist and and too many police are indifferent about getting involved or just plain hostile to cyclists, resulting in less people who bicycle. Mandatory helmets are not going to help this, it’s just going to make it worse.

Safety-in-numbers is also observed in the U.S.

Portland, OR and New York City, NY are two places off the top of my head that have documented their Safety-in-numbers effect. And Minneapolis, MN just documented theirs (Ref: https://streetsblog.net/2013/01/18/the-safety-in-numbers-effect-surfaces-in-minneapolis-bike-crash-data/ )

We need more people who bicycle, please take steps to remove barriers and not add any more barriers to cycling.

Thanks!