You are hereBAC meeting outcome, frustration and anger.
BAC meeting outcome, frustration and anger.
I'm still kinda pissed off about the outcome of last night's BAC meeting with regards to all the pictures of helmetless Austinite cyclists being excluded from the final 2009 Bicycle Plan Update document. Rather than say some stuff I may later regret about a group of people that I actually really like, I'll just link you to Elliot's writeup over on Austin on Two Wheels.
Yeah I tried to bite my tongue and that lasted about 45 seconds. I'm fucking frustrated, and think it's completely stupid to throw ALL traces of visual representation for the MAJORITY of the cyclists that the plans outlined improvements are supposedly being built for onto the pyre of political correctness. While I agree that getting BUDGET approval for the various projects is a higher priority than showing a diverse representation of Austin's cycling culture, but can't we do BOTH? According to the CoA, nope, not gonna happen. These changes were practically slipped through the back door. We weren't notified, and they were only posted to the city's website TWO DAYS before the ruling was made. I'm assuming these were the "legal snafus" that were mentioned back in May that kept the document from being voted on at the time. I guess they needed a few more weeks to re-craft it into something that would piss off, disenfranchise and completely disregard so many of us cyclists who ride and bleed on the streets of Austin.
Not only that, but when several members of the BAC emphasized their displeasure at the picture removal, the CoA bike program staff threatened to remove ALL of your pictures, helmets or no. Thanks. I love you guys, I really do, but sometimes (not often!) you disappoint me. I know you've gotta pick your battles and are first and foremost City employees, but damn. That's cold.
It's cool, I'll get over it. Not all of yesterday sucked, and some good things did get decided at the meeting. I met up with the Thursday Night Urban Night Ride after the meeting, which is always a good time, and before-hand I spend an hour and a half riding around downtown, enjoying the scenery and bumming around at bike shops. All together I visited Mellow Johnny's, Longhorn Bikes, Fast Folks, and East Side Pedal Pushers, and enjoyed myself thoroughly at each one. The diversity shown between just those four shops really reflects the broad scope of the local cycling community. Whether you're a roadie, a loaded tourer, a twisted and chromed low-rider guy, a fixed gear freestyler, or just a girl on the East side trying to get to work, not only does Austin have a plethora of bike shop that are happy to serve your needs, but chances are we've probably got a bike shop (or three) that SPECIALIZES in what you love. And it got me thinking: How much would it suck if ALL the shops in Austin were of one kind; only roadie shops, only MTB shops, or only tri shops? Where would you go for your 72-spoke 20" gold dipped low-rider wheel? That old stem mounted friction shifter you need for your vintage randonneur bike? The matching wheels/crank/stem/seatpost that'll make your neon fixed gear look fly? I really think Austin benefits from the variety of bike shops we have to offer, which in turn reflect the incredible diversity of cyclists they serve.
You see, this is what the document is trying to do, albeit not with words. Through selective visual imagery, they seem to want to homogenize us cyclists and stuff us into a nice, city-approved packaging. To completely overlook and disregard what constitutes a MAJORITY of the local community is FUCKING BULLSHIT, but I guess that's how guv'mint works, eh?
I was a bit upset too...particularly since it's one of the things that I first appreciated about the plan, the diversity of riders pictured.
Unfortunately, it would take an amendment to the plan passed by council to get the photos back in, and that's just not worth it.
Hell, I grew up riding barefoot. Stupid, but sometimes you just do it. My kids just put on flip flops for a four-block ride to the pool yesterday. I told them it wasn't a good idea, but I wasn't hauling them back in to the house to get them set straight that time....call me a bad parent.
You guys ever see Annick in "Slacker"? I always saw her around town back then and every dude hade a giant crush on her (I'm sure lots still do). It's really cool to see her in city gubment now, and her hubby Ed kicks ass. I knew him at the BSS back when it was on B. Springs. I'm old.
Really? I'll have to re-watch that, it's probably been about a decade since I've seen it myself. Annick's a badass, just in this case I disagree with the City line.
Don't they know they have a higher risk of head injury than bicylists?
I hope they are planning to pull any pictures of pedestrians without helmets.
Your frustration is understandable as many awesome photos are now going to be left out, and it would have been fun to see the document filled with photos of the custom bikes around town and whatnot. But the city does have a responsibility to promote safe biking behavior. To them this isn't an issue of showing the diversity of bikers in Austin, it's all about safety. They also want to avoid the obligatory freak-out folks who are going to call in and complain. Aesthetics and opinions aside, it *is* unsafe to ride without a helmet and closed-toed shoes. Do we really want people new to the biking community to not be safe, especially with all the brushes with cars that happen?
Shit, I'd rather be a chickadee on her bike with her hair in the wind, but I don't trust Austin drivers to not kill me so I wear a helmet. Doing that doesn't make me a part of a separate group or an "other" (or does it?), it just makes me someone who wants to not die. And others not wearing one is totally fine, it's their business, their decision, their risk, but it's not a lifestyle to not wear a helmet (or is it?). Basically, no one is being discriminated against; it's just about safety.
The city of Austin isn't trying to come down on our diverse community; they can't help that many riders choose to go without a helmet. It sucks, but what's important is the meat and potatoes of the plan itself, not the appearance of the subjects in the photos.
`Aesthetics and opinions aside, it *is* unsafe to ride without a helmet and closed-toed shoes.'
Even with your asterisks in there, this is an opinion, not a fact. At best, it's a judgement call -- but it's a very subjective one.
Or, let's look at it a from a different angle --
`it *is* unsafe to ride without a helmet ...'
You do believe this statement to be true, right? (I just want to simplify things here, though I could just as easily concentrate on closed toe shoes, except that there's less data on that.)
Do you agree that the majority of bicycle accidents don't involve your head actually hitting anything? I'm not saying that head injuries don't happen or don't matter, only that more than 50% of bicycle accidents don't involve the head hitting anything, and therefore a helmet would not help. Right?
Well, if a helmet helps in less than 50% of accidents, and it *is* unsafe to ride without a helmet ... guess what? It's unsafe to ride without a helmet too! Or are you suggesting that the < 50% reduction in injuries (let's assume that bicycle helmets prevent 100% of head injuries) is enough to move bicycle riding from `unsafe' to `safe' ?
According to this site (which is pro-helmet, by the way), `About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries'. Which tells me that 12% of bike injuries serious enough to involve a trip to the hospital involve head injuries.
Assuming that helmets completely prevent head injuries, and 50% helmet use, so that only people without helmets have head injuries, that works out to 24% of `go to the emergency room serious' bike accidents involve the head injuries. (If helmets are less effective, then the figure would be somewhere between 12% and 24%, depending on how much less. My guess is that it's closer to 12% than 24%.)
So, if helmets reduce injuries by 12-24%, is that small reduction in injuries enough to make bicycling go from *unsafe* to *safe* ? The 24% figure assumes helmets are 100% effective. If they're 0% effective at preventing head injuries, the figure would be zero. The reality is probably somewhere in between.
Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that safety comes from a helmet. And if I buy the argument that biking without a helmet is unsafe, the statistics requires that I also acknowledge that biking *with* a helmet is also unsafe, and I don't want to do that, and really, the (other) statistics don't really say that.
Let me preface by saying that I adamantly disagree with any helmet laws, but I still don't see any reason why someone wouldn't wear one.
According to your numbers, a little more than 1 in 10 serious bike injuries involve the head. That's not a percentage to laugh at. I can understand you deciding to forego a level of protection that isn't really proven if it involved a huge expense or hassle to use. But helmets are cheap and take two seconds to get on and off. No, they're not the most comfy, cute things and I also occasionally ride without one, but I also enjoy the use of my brain.
Someone else mentioned gloves in addition to closed toe shoes. I usually wear gloves, even though I hate them. They're more of a pain than a helmet, but I've had my palms scraped raw enough times to deal with the minor annoyance.
That said, to be practical, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm not about to dress up in full armor every time I go out (that's only for special rides). I've almost always worn a helmet and when an impatient old lady tried to whip her car in front of me as I was going 35 mph last year, and I went through her windshield, well, I was lucky in many ways, but you should have seen the state of my helmet in the aftermath. I'm so glad that thing took the damage, and not my skull. I'm so glad that I'm not still picking pieces of glass out of my head, as I am in my back.
What matters most on my body is my head, and I am terrified of ending up dead or worse, a vegetable. If having a helmet prevents that unlikely scenario from happening, it's well worth it. A friend of mine insists I wear one as she once went on a ride and woke up two weeks later in the hospital. She is too terrified to bike ride now.
But I see your point. My phrasing should have been more along the lines of "riding without a helmet is less safe," "riding with one is safer..."
You have a higher risk of a helmet preventable head injury in a car than on a bike.
By your logic you SHOULD wear a helmet while driving your car.
I'm not being facetious. You have a higher risk of a head injury in a car than on a bike. These injuries could be prevented by a helmet.
http://www.tbiguide.com/howbrainhurt.html
"Each year in America, one million people are seen by medical doctors due to a blow to the head. Of that number, 50,000 to 100,000 have prolonged problems that will affect their ability to work and/or affect their daily lives. The majority of people that I see are injured in car accidents."
So the majority of head injury patients this doctor sees are caused by car accidents.
http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=441
"Motor vehicle accidents account for an estimated 28% of traumatic brain injuries; sports/physical activity account for 20%; assaults are responsible for 9%; 43% are due to "other" reasons. However, when considering those brain injuries severe enough to require hospitalization, virtually half (49%) are caused by motor vehicle accidents.2"
I think I'm happier about the closed toe shoes than the helmet thing - closed toe shoes and gloves have saved me from some road rash more times than I can count. I wear a helmet, but I honestly wonder how much it protects me against a serious collision. I wonder if it would make more sense for me to just ditch the styrofoam model completely and go with one of those hard case helmets without a neck ring or visor (the ones lots of people on mopeds and scooters use). I just feel like the verdict is out on a lot of head injuries - how much shock is really absorbed by the helmet compared to the skull if you hit the asphalt at speed? Helmets have saved me from a lot of facial stitches and road rash for sure, and I'm glad I wear one, I just wonder how much difference it really makes in a serious car-bicycle collision. I think a solid bicycling infrastructure that emphasizes less immediate car-bicycle interaction (like in the netherlands) is probably better than a helmet in the long run. I'm pretty sure the bicycle fatality rate per km rode over there is better than here, but their helmet use is lower.
"I think a solid bicycling infrastructure that emphasizes less immediate car-bicycle interaction (like in the netherlands) is probably better than a helmet in the long run." Indeed. That would be wonderful!