Bike Helmets and Europe
Richard Layman, over at Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space, is capping on our recent cover story about bike helmets. After laying out his own biography vis-a-vis helmets, Layman goes prescriptive on what Washington City Paper could have done to produce a better cover story. Here goes:
The City Paper article would have been better had it been motivated to go beyond snarky, and discussed the difference between riding in the U.S. and Europe, and had they interviewed bicycling experts beyond head injury types, such as Rutgers University professor John Pucher (see "John Pucher – the Bicycle Scholar" from Momentum Magazine and the full paper, "Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany") or Anne Lusk, a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health (see this column by Neal Peirce, "A New Two-Wheeled Course?" about cycle tracks and Anne's work).
Shit! Man, I knew we were missing something! I should have sent an advance copy over to Layman, and this disaster would have been averted. I mean, how do you write a comprehensive story about cycling in D.C. without drawing comparisons with Europe? That section would have worked perfectly right between the story about D.C. bike messenger Rico and the local guy who died from a bike accident in Colorado. My apologies.
As for failing to consult with Pucher and Lusk---again, a huge belly flop.
We'll let Layman have the last word on this: "Sadly, the City Paper is most happy being snarky in its articles, rather than taking a step beyond conventional wisdom."
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: April 28th, 2009citypaper helmet article « nathanwelchdesign
1:32 pm[...] helmets debate [...]
11:30 am
Damn man, why do you get so defensive when people criticize your work? You sound so petty in this post. It wasn't the greatest article ok? Helmets save lives but cars take them, that's the reality.
What would it take to force people to use mass transit? that's what i'd like to know.
11:39 am
i don't think the cover story dropped the ball, in fact i enjoyed it. i always like reading about cycling in dc and the helmet/no helmet issue is an important one. there is, however, something to be said for at least pointing to the "third way" of looking at it - the unbelievably low rates of both bicycle injuries and helmet usage in western european countries. look at it this way: no one sane argues that one shouldn't wear their seat belt in the car for short trips, or that they are a better/more cautious driver when they are unbuckled, just as no one should argue that they are actually safer without a helmet on.
but comparing bicycles to cars just because they both roll on the same road is not, i think, the entire story. compare a bike to a mechanized vehicle that has about the same capabilities of a bike - like a golf cart. people don't buckle up and don't even wear helmets in golf carts, but there isn't yet a moral panic about reckless golf cart injuries.
my point is there might not be something inherently dangerous about riding a bike - what's dangerous might just be where and how bikes have to be ridden in dc and most US cities. the relatively chaotic mixture of bikes, pedestrians and cars is in my opinion what makes cycling dangerous in dc at this time. so, wear your helmet here, but when you visit denmark, feel free and safe in taking your helmet off and letting your hair down.
12:03 pm
g.d. -- my very long response got trashed by the browser.
More snark isn't the prescription I was suggesting.
OK, to recap but very shortly... compare the WCP to the Baltimore CP or the Philadelphia CP or Philadelphia Weekly and those papers feel like they cover local issues more, and that they are focused on engaging in the discourse, moving things forward.
While they might not be the absolute best stories in the world, "Let's Go" on transit (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2005-01-27/cover2.shtml) and "Marketing 215" (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2004-09-16/cover.shtml) from the Philadelphia CP demonstrate what I Mean.
Forgive me for loving newspapers--I subscribed to Editor & Publisher starting in junior high--and for believing in the old E.W. Scripps slogan "show people the light and they will find the way."
When you shed little additional light then people (readers) are likely to continue to stumble.
There are plenty of stories out there in the arts and culture realm, stories that the Post doesn't really cover, and out there in the wards and about how things work.
How the hell do you think I learned how things worked?
For a long time, long before I read _Dream City_, it was by reading the WCP, including cover stories on people like David Wilmot, the first Purple Line story I read in maybe 1989 or 1990 by Mark Jenkins, the old coverage on urban design issues by Mark Jenkins, the weekly coverage on development deals in the news section or Loose Lips.
There's still plenty of room out there for heightened journalistic relevance.
Even in your financially weakened state, the WCP reaches a lot of people, far more than I do in my blog or other writings (at best I have about 1,000 to 1,2000 daily visitors to my blog).
That would appeal greatly to me, more than getting the chance to be snarky and snotty.
12:13 pm
Mr. Layman, I am one of your semi-regular readers and I certainly appreciate your feedback and institutional knowledge on WCP. Your comment definitely does not count as snark. But I have to say--aside from the headline, the piece on bike helmets was anything but snarky.
I'm not even sure you read the piece. Instead, it seems like you just labeled it snarky because that's what people think of WCP. Maybe it wasn't a Brookings Institute paper on best bike practices, but it certainly wasn't an attitude filled snarkfest.
Yes, we've run plenty of snarky pieces. And we will continue to do so. But this piece wasn't one of them. I found the stories of people like Rico and others quite moving and well told.
I think what you are asking for--a public discussion on public transit, biking comparisons with other cities, etc. is already happening in the comments section on City Desk and the cover story. Or at least I hope it does.
12:24 pm
Yeah, maybe I've just been too deep in snark central over here, but I didn't get much snark at all from the helmets piece. I don't think we've ever run a less snarky lede.
Signed,
Another Big Layman Fan!
2:32 pm
Snark,
So snark snark snarky snark. And snark snarked the snarky snarkington.
Snarkingly,
Snark.
4:42 pm
I agree with DBone that this article was only mildly snarky, at most.
But I think I the reason this article elicited such a strong reaction was that it seemed like the writer was advocating for one side of this issue and wasn't examining all sides fairly.
Of course, everyone *should* wear a helmet and those who don't are taking serious, unnecessary risks to their health and well-being. But there is a school of though that the only way to make cycling more safe is to get more cyclists on the road. By doing this, motorists become more accustomed to dealing with cyclists and adjust their driving habits accordingly. This, many believe, is the reason cycling fatalities in western Europe are so low despite their low rates of helmet use.
Snyder didn't even come close to addressing this school of thought. In fact, I spoke with one cyclist who said her story made biking in D.C. less safe by giving the impression that cycling is extremely dangerous and thus discouraging people to get on their bikes.
Surely in her reporting on this topic, she came across someone who ascribed to the More Cyclists school of thought. And yet she chose to ignore it entirely. Why?
4:56 pm
Martin: Good point---I'll calm down a bit. Perhaps I should have explained a bit more what we were trying to accomplish here in this story. We are not policy prescriptivists here; we're not a think tank, and so we're not going to, like, try to figure out how D.C. could adopt some better citizen-cycling model. What we were after in this piece was to behold a phenomenon in the city--that is, why do people here refuse to wear helmets? We wanted to get deep into the matter by exploring the relationship between cyclists and this simple, cheap, and effective device. I believe that we succeeded in doing this, especially with the fascinating narrative about Rico. I mean, here's a guy who gets his bell rung, suffers severe and lasting damage, and then later gets back on his bike without a helmet. Now, you can say the story missed the point all you want, but if that sequence of events doesn't help you to understand how deep-seated is the aversion to helmet use, I don't know what will. Layman--and yes, I am a fan of his as well--seemed to be wanting us to have written another story altogether. That's the point I was trying to make--that consulting the European model or better experts wasn't what we were after. If anything, we should have consulted more locals--not experts or Europeans--about their strange views on helmets.
5:24 pm
I guess I could have just said:
do you really need 6 pages and all those great photos to say "it's really f****** stupid and risky to not wear a bicycle helmet!"?
And yes Erik, all the examples were very good--sadly sadly tragic and terrifying really, if you are a regular bicyclist. I guess looking at the story from your perspective, (if I may paraphrase) that you are "stupified that otherwise likely to be intelligent people don't wear bicycle helmets on what can be very mean streets", I can see why you felt it necessary to devote that amount of space and number of photos to exhaustively reinforce the point.
My reaction was a little different, that if you're going to dedicate that much space to this important issue, go further. It wouldn't have taken all that much extra effort and it would have made a decent story even better.
Maybe it's just because after my last bike accident, I didn't really need any convincing that it is really stupid and risky to not wear a helmet.
I don't think there are "two sides" as another commenter said, because what is the public health benefit to encouraging helmetless riding?
At least, until we have a place where 35%+ of trips are made by bicycle, a la Copenhagen. Then, not wearing a helmet could be a safe choice, given fundamental changes in the underlying conditions.
5:43 pm
Richard: I guess I'd just ask you to consider again what we were trying to do here. The point of the story is not to say that it's stupid not to wear a helmet--it was to explore a little more deeply why people do not, given the available evidence that it's indeed a pretty good idea, as ideas go. But I'm sure by now that we're going in circles. Main point here is thanks very much for reading and caring enough to respond, criticize, and so on.
6:21 pm
@Layman
I'm not saying we should encouraging helmetless riding. But by putting so much emphasis on wearing a helmet, we may be discouraging some people from getting on their bikes at all. This makes biking less safe for everyone. It might sound paradoxical, but forcing people to wear helmets might actually make biking in the city less safe.
9:42 am
Erik -- yep! Remember, "criticism" can come out of great love...
And Dave -- yep! As you know, there is the research result that finds that the more riders there are the safer it is--because drivers have to change their behavior. So more riding of any kind does improve the overall environment for safety. OTOH, it doesn't necessarily make the riding environment personally safer for any one individual. Hence the helmet...
injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm
9:58 am
Yes, every individual should wear a helmet at all times. Nobody would disagree with that. But, to make the overall biking environment safer, we as a society shouldn't do things that discourage people from getting on their bikes, like publish scare articles larded up with horror stories about people not wearing helmets.
7:28 pm
I commute 3000 miles a year by bike and another 1000 for fun and shopping etc. I wore a helmet for the first 4 years, fell of twice and was knocked off by a car once. Wearing a helmet made no difference as my head never hit the ground. I stopped wearing a helmet last year and I have not fallen off or been knocked off since. My head is no longer sweaty, cars give me more room and being helmetless sends out the signal that cycling is not a scary dangerous activity. I would wear a helmet if I took up racing or mountain biking where there is a greater chance of accidents but for everday cycling I don't think there is any need.
10:36 pm
I agree with Nick, there is no need for helmets for everyday unless you want to wear them and feel safer.I don't fault anyone who wears them. However, with the number of cyclists on the road, the number of fatalities is extremely low. You might as well say you should wear a helmet walking down a sidewalk, as it would protect you better if a car hit you in the crosswalk. You could say don't drive because a Mack Truck could broadside you going thru an intersection and kill you, or cross the line into your lane. We should wear a helmet in our homes because we may slip and hit our temple on a table corner. We cant live with fear, we have to live and enjoy life. There is a risk in everything we do. In Europe, most rider do not wear helmets. They have more of a bike culture and that should tell you something. Helmets should be an option and not mandatory or pushed down our throats like global warming.
3:01 pm
I think it would been better if the City Paper had written an article about the AAA report listing DC as the worst drivers (per capita accidents per annum), in the United States.
Alternatively, a similar shock article going after drivers who talk on their cell phones while driving. Cycling without a helmet is entirely legal and at worse endangers only the cyclist whereas driving under the influence of phoning is both illegal and more debilitating than driving while very intoxicated (check out the NHTSA report).
Cyclists in DC are an unpopular minority. The "myth of scofflaw cyclist" allows for constant vilification of a vulnerable population and the City Paper has failed by ignoring journalism's obligation to speak for the little guy. When a journalist protects the status quo by attacking its victims, they have failed the very spirit of the tradition and neutralized the essence of the exercise.
Good journalism shocks the conscience rather than the facade of propriety. I swear like a sailor but the profanity in the CP response to Mr. Laymans criticism wrecks any shred of damaged dignity and instead comes of as a shrilly snarky defense of the accidentally empowered.
Thankfully, either a change in staffing or the chastening of conscience has allowed the CP management to come around with their coverage of todays Ride of Silence.
Three dead cyclists. Young people killed by illegal or irresponsible driving and no justice has yet come down. There has been no resolution, there has been no trial, there has been no change in a community that is willing to accept these as acceptable losses and these are the few. The area has seen so many people on foot killed by cars and once again, no change.
The government is simply the mask of the people. If you want change, don't blame the city, blame yourselves for not demanding change. But the journalist is especially to blame as they are tasked with being the voice of the people. And when the voice of the people is a snarky defense of blyth and bloodied power it becomes reactionary and it becomes an accomplice.
Todays cover offers a chance at redemption, I hope the City Paper will embrace it and become "The City Paper" it should be.
-Ben West
rhyswest@yahoo.com
3:31 pm
Broken
Every time we take to the open road, we entrust our lives to a safety net of legal protection and basic human decency. That system has failed.
By David Darlington
Ross Dillon and his father, Rusty, Oct. 2007. Ross took his last bike ride on June 3, 2002.
© Jeremy Harris
Click here to find out more!
As Dillon was taken away in an ambulance, Nelson thought he was probably a fatality. By the time Nelson returned to talk to Hamer, she had calmed somewhat. "I was just driving along and then there was this big bang," she said. "I thought to myself that I had been hit by another car. All I saw was black, and there was glass flying everywhere. It all happened so fast. I just ended up here, and I got out and that was when I realized I had hit somebody. Did you get any witnesses? Was he in my lane? I really don't know what happened. It just went black, and I guess now I know that the black I saw was the guy rolling over my windshield."
Nelson asked Hamer if she was aware she'd drifted onto the shoulder before the crash. "I was just driving straight," she said.
"Were you talking on your cell phone, or reaching for something in the car?" Nelson asked. Hamer said that her phone didn't get reception in that area, and that she'd been looking directly ahead. Finally, Nelson asked if she'd taken any medications or drugs before driving, and she said she hadn't. As her car was being impounded, Nelson gave Hamer a ride home, during which he concluded that she wasn't under the influence of alcohol or otherwise impaired, though he didn't administer any chemical tests.
When the ambulance crew arrived at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, an emergency-room nurse told the operating room: "I'm not sure you have a patient." Dillon had catastrophic head injuries-a member of the trauma team said he had the biggest brain hematoma she'd ever seen-and his C-7 vertebrae was broken, but his spinal cord was undamaged and, thanks to the quick reactions of passersby and emergency personnel, he entered surgery within 45 minutes of being hit. Over the course of his ordeal, he'd stop breathing four times - immediately after the crash, once in the ambulance, once in the operating room and once in intensive care.
Betsy and Rusty Dillon didn't learn about their son's crash until that night. When he failed to come home for dinner, Betsy telephoned the Highway Patrol, which confirmed that a cyclist named Ross Dillon had been involved in an accident. When Betsy asked where he'd been taken, she waited for several minutes on hold before learning the name of the hospital. (Later she realized that the CHP office probably thought Ross was in the morgue.) By the time the Dillons arrived at Memorial, surgeons had already removed part of Ross's skull to relieve the swelling in his brain, and when Betsy first glimpsed him in the intensive-care unit, she was overwhelmed. "One of his eyes was yellow and swelled up to the size of a baseball," she remembers. "They had him hooked up to a bed that was moving him from side to side like a rotisserie."
The prognosis was equally bad. The Dillons were told that Ross would never be the same, and that they should prepare themselves for some very tough decisions. "People thought he might be brain dead," Betsy says. "When we got there, they started talking to Rusty about donating Ross's organs." By the next day, Dillon's condition had stabilized, but he remained in critical condition and in a coma. Six days after the crash, a neurosurgeon friend of the Dillons rated his chances for future improvement at 5 percent.
Upon receiving all this news, Rusty telephoned Kate Moore, a family friend whose son had grown up with Ross. "My beautiful boy is broken," he said.
http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s-3-12-16637-3,00.html
4:22 pm
Rodale's Bicycling magazine wins national award
11:11 PM EDT, April 30, 2009
Rodale's Bicycling magazine staffers accepted a National Magazine Award tonight in a gala at New York City's Lincoln Center.
Loren Mooney, Bicycling's editor-in-chief, and writer David Darlington were nominated for "Broken," which appeared in the magazine's January/February 2008 issue. The article spotlights laws that fail to protect bicyclists or penalize drivers in bicycle-car crashes.
The 2009 Ellies drew 1,707 entries from more than 350 print and online magazines. A total of 26 winners across 20 categories were presented with awards from the American Society of Magazine Editors and the Columbia School of Journalism.
Bicycling won in the public interest category, which "recognizes journalism that sheds new light on an issue of public importance and has the potential to affect national or local debate or policy."
Finalists in the category included Businessweek, Newsweek, Vanity Fair and Mother Jones.
12:44 am
Erik, Whether the article should have quoted Pucher, the writer of Copenhagenize.com (very vocal on the subject of helmets), or someone else; it would have taken just a quick Internet search for the author to get an understanding of the reasonable arguments against encouraging, let alone requiring, helmet use and then include that in the article as an alternate viewpoint.
The potential for the SmartBikeDC system would be dramatically limited if helmet use were mandatory because there's no feasible way to have sanitized helmets of a variety of sizes available for rental with the bikes. That's the main reason I lobbied against a mandatory helmet law in Annapolis this year.
Additionally, there's some research showing that the health benefits for a limited number of individuals that wear helmets are offset by the much larger health benefits of having more people ride bikes and have an active lifestyle, which can be seen as discouraged by helmet mandates (or articles such as this one) because of the implied level of danger (which is real but being disproportionately hyped).
This isn't to say that cycling doesn't pose risks or that I don't wear a helmet, but driving in a car poses a lot of risks as well and no one is pushing helmets for them (aside from the following link).
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html