Hey, there! Log in / Register
Faceplant risks: Researchers say most Hubway users don't wear helmets
By adamg on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 3:36pm
And that's not a good thing, say researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who had trained observers stationed outside Hubway rental kiosks last year.
Some 80% of Hubway users rode with no head protection - a far higher number than non-rental riders - according to their study, printed today in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
"Head injury accounts for about a third of all bicycle injuries and about three-quarters of bicycle related deaths, so these are some pretty shocking numbers," says lead author and emergency medicine physician Christopher Fischer, MD. "We were surprised to find that of all bicyclists, more than half rode without helmets. But it was even more concerning to learn that four out of five bike share riders were out there without helmets."
Researchers said helmet uses decreases the risk of head and brain injury by 65 to 88 percent. Their observers spent a total of 50 hours observing 3,000 bicycle riders outside rental kiosks in Boston and Washington, DC.
Last fall, Hubway and the city released stats showing no injuries in 100,000 rides.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I always wear a helmet when I
I always wear a helmet when I ride bikes, for a variety of reasons, among them that I don't want to smush my brain. I am a very pro-helmet person. If I used Hubway, I would bring a helmet along. But...
It says right in the quotation that 2/3 of bike injuries DON'T involve head injuries. You know what doesn't prevent cars from hitting bikes? Helmets. You know what does? More people on bikes.
Huh huh
Annals.
Welcome to the club, t-honks.
I, too wear a helmet when I ride a bicycle, whether it be here in the city, or for long-distance rides out in the country. One can sustain a crippling or killing head injury on their bicycle anywhere, and the people who dismiss wearing helmets out of hand are full of baloney, plain and simple.
I say we let Darwin sort them
I say we let Darwin sort them out.
Hubway isn’t a sporty endeavor
I see these findings as positive. If we felt using Hubway was unsafe, we would wear a helmet. Most people group bike share in the same category as riding the T, walking and driving. It’s a method to get from point A to point B. Hubway isn’t a sporty endeavor for which you need a helmet. The data from more established bike share systems in DC, London and Paris show the same trend: http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/from-london-...
Zero injuries, thefts in Minneapolis bike share
I just saw this article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/14944...
Yes, their bike share is called "Nice Ride."
Ted doesn't think it's such a
Ted doesn't think it's such a big deal: http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael...
That said I always wear mine when I Hubway but I don't care if others choose not to.
not entirely a "no-brainer"
You are always better off to wear a helmet because IF an accident does occur...the risk of injury is reduced. But I think riding Hubway bikes is different from how one rides in other circumstances. These are relatively heavy cruiser bikes typically being ridden short distances by people who are not in a hurry. On a road bike in the city, I'm going 15-30mph when I can. On a hubway...it's like 10mph. You are just not going to crash in the same way you would on a road, hybrid, fixie or mountain bike. And if a car runs you over, the helmet is not helpful anyway. I would never advocate against helmets, but I think it is not the highest priority cyclist behavior modification necessary for Hubway riders.
Someone Needs to Fight the Good Fight
Instead of quoting suspect studies, some of which are likely funded by Bell or other helmet manufacturers...
Why don't we do a study of cities where people aren't deliberately or casually run down like dogs by cars and the streets are maintained so as not to be riddled with chasms, cracks, and holes?
I would bet in those cities helmet use is low, and mostly unnecessary.
Wearing a helmet is giving in to the lowest common denominator instead of doing something to try to improve biking conditions.
I didn't wear a helmet in the Netherlands
but I also was riding slow 'beater' bikes, with coaster brakes and either 1 or 3 speeds, on flat terrain, much of it on separated bike paths. The most serious hazards there are street-running trolley tracks (like the ones on South Huntington Avenue in Boston, except everywhere in Amsterdam).
Disagree Ron
The most serious hazard in Amsterdam is trying to navigate the roads after ingesting a space cake from the Bulldog Cafe.
Don't forget the Trapist Ale bar
Which certainly inhibited me (in a very good way).
As for helmets and Hubway, I agree with the commenters who say no helmet on these bikes is okay. Certainly I favor helmets, and pretty much always wear one for my routine rides. But Anyway is more of an unplanned riding option, and as such, I wouldn't expect people to have their helmets. They represent a different kind of bike, different kind of riding, and I wouldn't want lack of helmets to keel these additional and highly visible bikes off the road. The more bikes, the safer it be more for all of us.
Crash test dummies
It will make it safer for me to ride my bike with a helmet if lots of people ride the Hubway bikes without helmets. The deaths and injuries will result in road safety initiatives (speed tables, chicanes, lanes, enforcement) from which I will benefit.
Crash Test Dummies
Oooonce
There was this guy who
got into a comments field
without wearing a helmet
and whe-en they finally made him
they
saw
It made more sense than on Hubway
They couldn't quite explain it
But his comments became
cohere-
ennnnnt
Mmmm Mmmm...
BYOH
Hubway is a Bring Your Own Helmet system, so I'm not surprised these users, who, one assumes, don't own bicycles, also don't own their own helmets. I'm sure Hubway could increase helmet use if they provided helmets as part of the rental. You wouldn't expect to have to provide your own helmet if you rented a motorcycle, would you?
Not always necessary
Of course wearing a helmet is always safer than not wearing one, but bike share users (myself included) don't always have one available, nor do we want to carry one around with us all day in the off chance we decide to grab a Hubway bike for a few blocks. As other commenters have said, the nature of Hubway trips is that they are usually quite short, and the bikes themselves do not lend oneself to going very fast. I personally have ridden Hubway quite a few times when I didn't have my helmet with me, but in these cases I am always even more cautious and careful than usual. Studies actually show that people do tend to take fewer risks when they don't have a helmet, and additionally motorists tend to operate more cautiously around helmet-less riders as well. I certainly wouldn't opt out of using Hubway for a trip just because I didn't have a helmet with me.
helmets don't help much
Their observers spent a total of 50 hours observing 3,000 bicycle riders outside rental kiosks in Boston and Washington, DC.
If only they put observers at some high-injury intersections and noted how people got the injuries in the first place, and then published THAT. If only they noted the 1990's-era study that showed Boston had one of the highest helmet-wearing rates in the world.
Lack of helmets don't cause injuries. Cars don't cause injuries. People driving the cars cause injuries, through either incompetent or illegal operation (distracted operation should fall under both.) That's because driver training is a joke, there's virtually zero punishment for improper or illegal operation even when there's substantial property damage or injury, no personal financial risk thanks to insurance, and a wide presumption the cyclist is responsible for their own injuries.
Cyclists have joked for decades that the best way to murder someone is to wait until they're riding their bike down the street and hit them with your car. The police will practically fall over themselves finding excuses for you and blaming the cyclist, the paper will talk about how distraught you were, how the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, and they'll kindly skip printing your name, too.
Remember that idiot that ran over a guy in Brookline with her car, and then kept trying to hit the gas while people tried to get the car off him? She was in complete violation of the law - didn't signal or check her mirrors or yield to him. The cyclist was passing her on the right like he's allowed to. She got away scott free, not even a slap on the wrist or a traffic ticket.
http://www.universalhub.com/2010/police-driver-hit...
How about the guy who struck and killed a woman on Longwood Ave, admitted he'd struck her - but police refused to issue any citations or criminal charges. They even went fishing for "mechanical" issues with the bicycle, and of course, the ever-present "not wearing a helmet" comments:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/news/x1458228...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/artic...
They should wear helmets,
They should wear helmets, because when a pedestrian, (doing nothing more offensive than walking on the sidewalk) shoves them into traffic for riding their stupid rent-a-bike on the mother-fucking-sidewalk, they won't hurt their idiot heads too much.
Cripes
thank you for bringing the Douche to Boston
They can ride on the sidewalk if it's not a business district. Plus, part of the reason they're probably on the sidewalk is because when you get in your car, you're Mr. Rage, buzzing close to them and revving your engine, honking at them, cutting them off, screaming "GET OUT OF THE ROAD", etc.
Never ceases to amaze me how much people get angry at another person simply because they're on a contraption with two wheels, not hurtin' nobody, minding their own fucking business, just trying to get on with life.
It is ironic seeing
It is ironic seeing bicyclists zig zagging along the sidewalk wearing helmuts as they are apparently feel endangered by pedestrians.... perhaps, given this common behaviour of the bicycle crowd ( I see it many times every day) Boston needs a law requiring everyone using a sidewalk to wear a helmut.
That is cars are to bicyclists as bicyclists are to pedestrians.
Since walking and biking are
Since walking and biking are so dangerous, we should get rid of all sidewalks and bike lanes in favor of having everyone drive. /sarc
+1 Love it. Cripes
+1
Love it.
Cripes
Wrong
Cars are to cyclists and pedestrians alike because MOTORISTS KILL THEM BOTH.
Cyclist/Ped accidents are a vanishingly small percentage of collisions and a nearly statistically invisible percentage of total injuries.
I don't want to hear a thing about cyclist scofflaws until I see some commitment to crack down on rampant jaywalking and rampant light running/intersection jamming/unsignalled turns/failure to yield by motorists. Not an effing peep!
Jaywalking is an "invented crime"
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/i...
Cities are for people.
The article makes little sense
The title of the article is The Invention of Jaywalking, yet it really doesn't talk about jaywalking. It mentions pedestrian deaths, but only those where cars careen out of control and plow into people on sidewalks. One case it mentions is your typical "elderly driver gets out of control" situation and doesn't get charged. That's not jaywalking. And yes, those drivers should get charged.
The article waxes nostalgic about cities over 100 years ago, and how streets were for people. That's not jaywalking and it is now 100 years later. If you pine for the good old days, then give up your phone and take the steamship to Europe.
What the article doesn't talk about is how multiple users - pedestrians, cars, cyclists - should be able to coexist on city streets by following rules. That means cars and cyclists behaving nicely and pedestrians walking when allowed (i.e. not jaywalking).
It's a short article
But I don't see how it could be unclear.
And the way people get away with murder behind the wheel these days was simply unacceptable back then.
Multiple users of the street is great. But drivers are surrounded by two tons of metal, they're in an inherently different position from pedestrians and cyclists. As we can see, even in the currently very limited situations where pedestrians are legally allowed in the street, they still get run over and swiped on a regular basis.
That isn't "sharing" the road, that's primacy of automobiles.
to swrlygrl, the judgemental suburbanite motorist
Pedestrians aren't cattle. Why are you so hateful to those who walk to get to and from their destination? Such vitriol. You don't live in the city. Why do you hate Bostonians who walk? Your carbon footprint sucks.
Huh?
She isn't like that at all.
Look for her post entitled...
... "Or ...".
Motorist?
Um, no toots - I put a lot more miles on my bikes and feet and T pass than I do driving my family car. Even when I'm in a car coming to work - six miles from my home as the crow flies - I maybe drive one day in ten.
Suburbanite? Last I checked, I live in a city that is closer to my downtown job than a sizeable chunk of Boston is, has population density higher than many parts of Boston, and ranks about 80th or so for population density for all communities in the entire USA. Regardless, I spend a lot more of my waking hours in downtown Boston than I do anywhere else. That is called "having a professional job", which I get to on a bike or via bus/train/foot (unless the carpool has room that day).
Preemptively, and for the record, I am not purple with spots and my mother didn't wear army boots (although granny and I were partial to them).
It is ironic seeing so many fucking pedestrians on bike paths
It is ironic seeing pedestrians all over bike paths, as they apparently feel endangered by bicyclists.
Seriously, I've seen entire families camped out on the bike path, strollers, small toddlers, dogs, you name it, with bicyclists whizzing by.
It's curious, because there are signs directing pedestrians to a different path of their very own, yet they prefer being on the path with all the high-speed bike traffic.
This is true on the Southwest Corridor path, the Paul Dudley White Bike Path (aka Charles river bike path), the Minuteman bike path, the Riverway/Jamaicaway path...even in cases where there are signs specifically directing (and prohibiting) bikes or pedestrians from adjoining paths.
In fact, paths which are multi-modal are far more dangerous for the cyclists who use them, and for which the paths were originally attended. So you know what? Get off my bike path!
The whole deal is...
Bicycles “may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance.”
And when riding on sidewalks, bicyclists must yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an auditory (loud) signal when passing pedestrians.
So it is not just because they are on a bike, anon, it is because I as a walker can't tell you how many times I almost got clipped by one of those "contraptions with two wheels" while I am on a sidewalk just minding my own bleeping business.
I don't own a car, moron. I
I don't own a car, moron. I walk everywhere, and these morons with their blinky-light, dingy-bell rent-a-bikes are a fucking non-English-speaking menace to sidewalks.
Cripes.
Or ...
When some oblivious livestock wanders out of their corral against the light and into the path of a legally proceeding cyclist, the cyclist will be less hurt hitting said oblivious cow, ewe, or ram.
Nice level of contempt...
... pedestrians as "livestock" and "oblivious cow, ewe, ram".
Sheesh!
Don't the sheep
...stay where they're put until the light goes on/sheepdog tells them when and where to go?
True
If there is a dog ...
Seriously - I've seen livestock with more presence of mind than the wandering woolybacks Boston produces. Then they yell at me when I whiz through a GREEN LIGHT on a bike when they have a RED HAND as if I was doing something wrong and not them. derpderpderp BIKE BAD BIKE BAD herpderp.
Hence my contempt. I have not, in all my travels, seen pedestrians anywhere that pay less attention to signals or their own safety while walking than I do in Boston. I'm amazed the pickpocket rings haven't figured this out yet.
I stop for traffic signals regardless of mode. A woman walking alongside me this afternoon just walked right into the path of a bus on High street that had the green to turn onto Federal and didn't even seem to notice - even when the bus screeched to a stop on wet pavement and blew the horn. Simply oblivious!
It would be alarming if I didn't see it happen daily at that intersection.
What if....
You are biking down the road along the right of traffic. Someone ahead is about to open their door and you get startled and react by pulling left a little to avoid the door. As you do this you hit a vehicle in the road and crash and die. The driver is asked what happened. The driver can't really answer because he has no idea how the crash happened. How do you investigate that?
I actually did investigate a crash like this once, but the biker lived and was able to tell me what actually happened at the hospital after getting some treatment. Wasn't really the bikers fault or the drivers fault. We were unable to find who attempted to open the door, but do you go ahead with criminal charges when the DA knows no jury will ever convict someone with circumstances like this?
The responsibility is of the
The responsibility is of the idiot in a car to use their mirrors, or you know, their fucking eyes and head and neck to rotate their fat face around to see if there is anything about to be in the path of the door they want to open.
Cripes. I mean, just fucking, cripes.
Dayum
I think I love you.
Obviously
But that person was gone, and nowhere to be found. It happens a lot.
Even if a person on a bike doesn't get hit by a car,
S/he can still take a spill as a result of cyling along a dirt or gravel road or path, coming on an oil slick or closed manhole on a wet, rainy or snowy day, or just plain skid if s/he needs to break suddenly for whatever reason, or on some sand at the side of the road, sustaining the same sort of life-taking or life-altering head injury. Helmets can and do save lives, whether one cares to believe it or not.
Also, I read about one woman who was riding on her bicycle whose life was saved by her wearing a helmet, when a truck rudely cut her off, in an intersection where she had the right of way (the truck driver blew through a STOP sign.). The woman on her bicycle had to brake suddenly, and she catapulted over the handlebars, and hitting the front of her head on the road pavement. Her helmet broke in half, and she sustained a black eye, but she came out alive. As she put it "That would have been my head that had broken in half."
it may be legal for cyclists to pass cars on the right
even if there isn't a lane for them, but it doesn't make it safe.
Frankly, cyclists have to stop acting like entitled children and accept the traffic laws and rules of the road that the rest of us have to follow. And that includes NOT passing on the right between traffic and parked cars -which leads to doorings that are entirely the fault of the impatient and entitled biker who feels they must get 'head of line' privledge and can't be bothered to stay in the same lanes as other drivers.
But I geuss it's easier to always blame drivers for cycling accidents. Unike cyclists, they have the deep pockets (i.e. insurance).
As for the helmet issue, there's an easy solution. If a cyclist is in an accident and is not wearing an helemt, make the cyclist liable for the medical and other costs incurred by their decision to not wear a helmet.
FTFY
Frankly, motorists have to stop acting like entitled children and accept the traffic laws and rules of the road that the rest of us have to follow. And that includes NOT passing on the right between traffic and parked cars -which leads to doorings that are entirely the fault of the impatient and entitled motorist who feels they must get "don't have to swivel neck and look" privledge and can't be bothered to look before they act in a manner befitting their use of heavy equipment.
But I geuss it's easier to always blame cyclists for accidents because drivers are special. Unike motorists, they aren't surrounding themselves with several thousand pounds of wealth display and entitlement to owning the road.
As for the seatbelt issue, there's an easy solution. If a motorist or passenger is in an accident and is not wearing an seatbelt, make the motorist liable for the medical and other costs incurred by their decision to not wear a seatbelt.
Wear a helmet....
I don't care how you want to rationalize not wearing a helmet, but you are playing with fire. As someone who knew 2 people that were killed riding bikes in this city (both were not wearing helmets) and knows endless others that have been flipped over cars, doored, run off the road, etc., it is only a matter of time until you get into a seriously dangerous situation. When that time comes, you sure as hell want to be wearing a helmet.
To me it seems that perhaps less than 10% of Hubway users wear helmets. Generally, people who use the bikes also seem like novice or infrequent riders. I must admit that I was shocked no one was killed last summer. Nonetheless, I still fear it is only a matter of time before this happens. Cycling in Boston is great fun, but it is not something that should be taken lightly.
Thanks for the concern, troll
No, seriously, thanks a lot. Now I know who's in the comments field of every story involving a dead cyclist (no matter what the circumstance) saying "they should have worn a helmet."
I've known my share of ghost bikes as well, and helmets wouldn't have done a damned thing to save two of my best friends, so feel free to chew that self righteousness thoroughly before swallowing, lest you choke on it.
Here's another little tidbit to keep you company under the bridge, troll: Even if 10% of Hubway users strap on a helmet, that's still more helmeted riders than on similar systems in Paris, Nice and Barcelona. It takes a whole lot to bring on a TBI by riding a cruiser bike at low speed. The Hubway riders aren't exactly blazing around the city like messengers, they're loping along in the bike lanes, taking paths through the necklace and seem legitimately petrified of Mass Ave, Boylston and Huntington. That's just fine: It's good to see instinct kicking in every so often.
I always wear a helmet when biking around the city, but I'm with the majority on this one: Leave the Hubway riders alone. I'm glad to see more stations and a ton of these bikes in use. That the Hubway riders tend to ride in packs is only better for everyone involved.
P.S. Does anyone think Hubway can be a means of improving city bike infrastructure? I know Cambridge has added a few crossovers on Memorial Drive. If enough Hubway riders bitch about crossing Huntington to get to Olmstead, do you think that area finally gets its pedestrian/bike bridge?
Not a troll....
so first of all, watch your mouth. Second, comparing most U.S. cities to European cities when it comes to bicycle safety is ridiculous. Really, it's comparing apples and oranges. Finally, I don't understand what the reason for not wearing a helmet is? You are so vain that you care what complete strangers think about the way you look? That's the crux of the argument, no? I cannot think of another reason.
Anyway, if Hubway folks want to ride without a helmet, it's their choice. Do I think it is safe, no. Should they be forced to, no. However, I think being up front about the risks of riding without a helmet should be well advertised. After they weigh the pros and cons, they can go ahead and make an informed decision.
There's no way in hell I
There's no way in hell I would bike around this city without a helmet. I always wear one on Hubway. The paving around the city is horrendous/uneven and also the amount of on-street parking greatly increases the risk of being doored. Not to mention the people in cars drive like maniacs (admittedly I'm also one of them). Add the poor driving to Boston's unfriendly biking-roads (like the JFK Surface Road highway ramps along the Greenway) and you have yourself a situation where you want to be protected.
It's not about fashion or even convenience. It's about your brain.
Duration of Exposure
The more you are out there, the more likely it is that something will happen that will or will not be salvageable with your mad biking skills. Hubway riders aren't out there that long, hence the lack of injuries. If you ride all the time in a variety of conditions, helmet use is wise.
I always wear a helmet - partly because I've had a couple of sport-related concussions before. Partly because my sons would have lost their mother at 5 months and 2 years of age had I not been wearing one when I encountered a rain-wet and badly maintained rail crossing fourteen years ago.
I still have that helmet in which I sustained a serious concussion anyway. I hit on the side and it is squashed sideways and has a 4" crack up the back. Where I hit my head is an area that, if it were unprotected, would have rapidly produced a hematoma and likely would have killed me before I got to a hospital. I got a week long headache instead.
I'll take it.
I have never had to remind my boys to use theirs - and they nag their friends. That helmet went to show and tell, too. As the kids across the street said when they saw my son wipe out on some sand last spring "you wear your helmet because you never know when you are going to crash".
Studies of children and bike injuries in Canada back that up - studies that were very large and were NOT bankrolled by helmet makers. They found that, after helmet laws for kids went into effect, the number of arm and leg and non-head injuries stayed the same - but the number of hospitalizations for severe concussions and extreme and fatal head injuries declined to nearly nil. (I have actually read the study referenced here)
Even though kids use and crash on bikes differently than adults, this is still something to think about.
Nobody wants to crash, nobody expects to crash
But riders still crash.
Here's a guy that always wears a helmet. After working on his bike, he took it out for a test spin - and crashed.
Your choice.
Id bet a good amount of money
Id bet a good amount of money that the following is also true
"Head injury accounts for about a third of all CAR injuries and about three-quarters of CAR related deaths, so these are some pretty shocking numbers," says lead author and emergency medicine physician Christopher Fischer, MD.
I can guarantee that forcing people to wear helmets while driving WILL save at least one life.
Even better, helmets in showers will also save lives and prevent injuries.
Hub bike question...
What if you rent a bike but there are no spots at the place you want to go? Do you always have to bring them back to the same place? (yes I'm too lazy to look it up online)
FAQ
You can return it to any open dock. If the dock is full:
http://www.thehubway.com/faq#_What_do_I_1
Live free
or Die.
REad article
It states no major accidents..not that there were not any. There was at least one accident that I know off. Be careful of the spin. Thank goodness that the injury was not major..but that does not belittle the fact that there are indeed accidents.