It’s the same reason I stopped wearing a helmet and started deliberately incorporating “the safety swerve” in my rides through the city, to give motorists the impression that I’m less competent, and therefore less likely to be sideswiped.

I didn’t see reference to the fact that (I see) bikeshare users riding on the sidewalks a lot, and therefore they may avoid a lot of risky on-road situations. I see a lot of bikeshare riders simply transferring onto the sidewalk in anything that might be considered an “uncomfortable” cycling environment, so that might contribute to a reduced accident rate. It is easy for them to do this because they are travelling slower than typical cyclists.

I consider the bikeshare users interviewed for this report to be experts, compared with the average user in Nashville, TN. The interviewed bikeshare users rode every week or more, whereas my impression in Nashville is that there are a lot of tourists on a on-off vacation. This means that they have fewer deadlines, are looking around and stopping often, and therefore speeds stay low and comfort takes precedence over getting anywhere in a hurry.

I agree with the finding that bikeshare riders often travel in groups, which are slow and easy for cars to see, as a possible factor reducing accident rates.

I’m still surprised that the frequent breaking of laws and unfamiliar surroundings do not contribute to more accidents. My impression as a bike commuter is that acting like a vehicle (i.e. predictable behavior that car drivers understand) and knowing exactly where to go on the road and what traffic will do next contribute greatly to my safety – but this report seems to suggest I am mistaken!

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your comment. That was, indeed, a careless sentence and I apologize for conflating the two, I’ve updated it. As a personal stance, and as an editorial stance on behalf of Momentum Mag, I’m not in support of mandatory helmet laws. However, neither do I suggest that nobody should wear a helmet, nor do I advocate against their use – we are anti-helmet law, not anti-helmet. We try to present the research as it comes to us from a balanced perspective. In this case, I admit poor word choice, so thank you again for calling me out on it.

Best,
Hilary

Helmet laws discourage cycling. The health benefits of even utilitarian cycling outweigh the risk of head injuries by a huge margin (I’m speaking of utilitarian cycling – road and mountain bike cycling are different, and most people do wear helmets for thos sport activities). Your repressive law would mean the premature death of far more people, due to the very serious impact of a sedentary lifestyle. This is also proven in several major studies.

Wear what you want, but don’t you dare tell me how to dress. I’ve already been cycling for well over 40 years. Often in a béret or tuque, here in Montréal. Remember that what you advocate is also sexist, as women are far more likely to experience serious problems about “grooming” at work if we show up with filthy matted hair.

Good for you.