Correlation between speed and death

[Ken M]

"---so it's not automatically unsafe to go over 20 mph on a bike. That said I crashed on an icy bridge on my ebike last year at about 22mph and my head (wearing a helmet) went into a fence post and I fractured 3 cervical vertebrae'.
You're quite right but, it's definitely safer to go at 10 mph than 20 mph and one is more likely to survive an accident at 22 mph, like you did, than if one were to have an accident at 32 mph. There's no denying that speed plays a massive part in whether you have an accident in the first place and how serious the accident proves to be if one is unfortunate to be involved in one. It is all a question of balance (no pun intended).

I agree but if we set speeds such that loss of life was very very very unlikely then economically it would be devastating. Can you imagine driving across country at 10mph and grounding all planes because when they crash they usually result in total loss of life.

I know I got hurt badly but I also could have / should have known the bridges were starting to ice over. We will never have totally safe travel and I hardly think setting assist limits on all ebikes at 20mph has any logic behind it.

 

[Sum1]

Yes. The faster you go the more likely you will die on that moving vehicle.

 

[FlatSix911]

Correction... The faster you go without a helmet, the more likely you will die on a moving vehicle.

 

[tomjasz]

There’s clear evidence that helmets CAN contribute to an enhanced feeling of being safer, and riders taking more risks. I’m on the side of personal choice and generally leaving helmets out of the realm of judgemental reviews of other riders choices. I only wear mine in winter when my carefully thought out risk assessment reveals a significantly higher risk. Cages don’t expect to see a bicycle when it’s 20F.

 

[FlatSix911]

Nonsense... just like the myth of not wearing seatbelts because you will be trapped inside the car.

Come work in any ER and see for yourself the number of Traumatic Brain Injuries... TBI's are devastating.

 

[tomjasz]

Nonsense... just like the myth of not wearing seatbelts because you will be trapped inside the car.

Come work in any ER and see for yourself the number of Traumatic Brain Injuries... TBI's are devastating.

yes seatbelt trapping is a myth, but significant studies reveal riders take ng increased risks.

I put myself through years of education working in an emergency room. I’ve enjoyed a lifetime of two wheels, flying, hang gliding, skiing, dirt boating, and more. Risks can be evaluated and mitigated. Please. There are a number of studies on helmets. Look if you will at head injury zones with motorcycle helmet. The falls are musch the same. There is no real testing of helmet standards. The UK came up with SHARP. Now read those reviews and helmet testing. Helmets costing hundreds of dollars fails to protect adequately. AND without question safety gear can add to a feeling of less vulnerable. I’ve experienced it first hand. IMO there’s nothing worse in forums discussions than one of us taking the moral high ground and expecting everyone else to quietly comply. BTW these discussions, as I’ve noted before, are banned on most MC forums. Someone ALWAYS takes the moral high ground.

Here’s one of my favorite posts, by a retired helicopter pilot and safety officer.

Let me just suggest a clarification of terminology: "Safety" versus "Survivability"

Protective gear does not increase safety, but it can increase survivability. Note that I say " can increase". There are forces for which the "best" gear are of no benefit. Armored gear cannot mitigate excess G forces, crushing forces or twisting on the body, for example. If wearing gear gives a rider a false sense of security that leads to increased risky behaviors, that rider is better off riding naked and riding more prudently.

No one can predict the forces his or her body will be subjected to in a mishap. In a recent motorcycle mishap here, the rider was wearing full, top of the line gear, while the passenger only a helmet. Traveling at a truly excessive rate of speed, the rider took a turn too wide and went into the culvert on the side of the road. The two were thrown about 35 metres in the air into a field, coming to rest about 1 1/2 metres apart. The rider suffered a broken arm, but bled out from massive internal injuries and died. The pillion suffered multiple serious fractures and minor internal injuries, but survived. The senior responding trauma nurse said that the significant differences in injuries suffered were due to the nature of each person's impact with the ground. It appeared that the rider did a full frontal belly flop, while the pillion tumbled and twisted.

So, consider safety first, then add protective gear as you see fit to mitigate as best it can should you suffer a mishap. Just don't let yourself think that gear is a "silver bullet" that allows you to slack up the slightest on safetyand prudence.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I agree but if we set speeds such that loss of life was very very very unlikely then economically it would be devastating. Can you imagine driving across country at 10mph and grounding all planes because when they crash they usually result in total loss of life.

I'm sorry but that is kind of a straw man argument.

The Dutch had less than 700 auto fatalities in 2018. If we Americans had the same fatality rate that would imply around 13000-odd fatalities. Which is 1/3 of what we actually have. As far as I can tell the Dutch have not bankrupted themselves.

So a lower fatality rate is possible and at reasonable cost. So why should people have to die for no good reason?

 

[FlatSix911]

yes seatbelt trapping is a myth, but significant studies reveal riders take ng increased risks.

I put myself through years of education working in an emergency room. I’ve enjoyed a lifetime of two wheels, flying, hang gliding, skiing, dirt boating, and more. Risks can be evaluated and mitigated. Please. There are a number of studies on helmets. Look if you will at head injury zones with motorcycle helmet. The falls are musch the same. There is no real testing of helmet standards. The UK came up with SHARP. Now read those reviews and helmet testing. Helmets costing hundreds of dollars fails to protect adequately. AND without question safety gear can add to a feeling of less vulnerable. I’ve experienced it first hand. IMO there’s nothing worse in forums discussions than one of us taking the moral high ground and expecting everyone else to quietly comply. BTW these discussions, as I’ve noted before, are banned on most MC forums. Someone ALWAYS takes the moral high ground.

Here’s one of my favorite posts, by a retired helicopter pilot and safety officer.

Let me just suggest a clarification of terminology: "Safety" versus "Survivability"

Protective gear does not increase safety, but it can increase survivability. Note that I say " can increase". There are forces for which the "best" gear are of no benefit. Armored gear cannot mitigate excess G forces, crushing forces or twisting on the body, for example. If wearing gear gives a rider a false sense of security that leads to increased risky behaviors, that rider is better off riding naked and riding more prudently.

No one can predict the forces his or her body will be subjected to in a mishap. In a recent motorcycle mishap here, the rider was wearing full, top of the line gear, while the passenger only a helmet. Traveling at a truly excessive rate of speed, the rider took a turn too wide and went into the culvert on the side of the road. The two were thrown about 35 metres in the air into a field, coming to rest about 1 1/2 metres apart. The rider suffered a broken arm, but bled out from massive internal injuries and died. The pillion suffered multiple serious fractures and minor internal injuries, but survived. The senior responding trauma nurse said that the significant differences in injuries suffered were due to the nature of each person's impact with the ground. It appeared that the rider did a full frontal belly flop, while the pillion tumbled and twisted.

So, consider safety first, then add protective gear as you see fit to mitigate as best it can should you suffer a mishap. Just don't let yourself think that gear is a "silver bullet" that allows you to slack up the slightest on safetyand prudence.

Thanks for sharing... so are you in favor of bike helmets or not?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Thanks for sharing... so are you in favor of bike helmets or not?

I like to protect what little brains I have.

 

[tomjasz]

Thanks for sharing... so are you in favor of bike helmets or not?

I support choice. I choose to wear a helmet when I think i’m engaging increased risks. Like winter riding and night riding. But i’m Mindful that these untested skull caps are far short of a proper full face helmet. My night helmet is blazing yellow with 3M marine reflectors. My winter a 3/4 snowboard. Rock climbing and dirtboating I ALWAYS wore a helmet. Bicycling on a leisure path or very low traffic streets, almost never.

I wear gloves far more than any other safety gear. I remember what breaking falls with my hands did without them.

 

[Toomanycats]

Yes. The faster you go the more likely you will die on that moving vehicle.

I also think that reaction time/bike handling skills figure into the equation. Does a rider know how to take evasive maneuvers if a car makes a left turn or pulls out in front of them? Can the rider steer his/her way out of a skid? Also, the handling characteristics of your bike change at speed.
My bike was designed as a mtb/commuter/speed pedelec but it gets twitchy around 25 mph.