Can you give the breakdown of the injury vs. non-injury crashes where helmet use wasn’t reported? I’m having a little trouble with your statistics and maybe having all the data in the table would be helpful. Should this read that 18% of riders wearing helmets in crashes were seriously injured or killed and 46% had minor or no injuries? What about the other 36% of riders who were in a crash and wore a helmet?

I really appreciate you actually looking at the numbers since it seems nobody else is, but having the percentages in the table add up to 100% would be helpful. Thanks!

There’s a sentence in the generally commendable MI Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan that strikes me as odd. “The need to reduce pedestrian/bicyclist deaths and injuries, *even in the face of ongoing efforts to increase levels of walking and bicycling,* continues to be an important goal…” Wait a minute–isn’t making walking and biking safer a critical component, indeed perhaps *the* critical component, of efforts to increase levels of walking and bicycling? The goals of decreased crashes and increased walking and bicycling aren’t in opposition!

That should be a matter of common sense, but (as usual) Portland, OR has the data to prove it. From 1991 to 2005, bicycle traffic in Portland more than quadrupled, while the number of bike crashes remained flat–representing a dramatic decline in crash rates. Pedestrian injuries declined dramatically as well, and, significantly, so did injuries to motorists. What’s safer for bicyclists and pedestrians (especially slower motor vehicle speeds) is also safer for drivers.

See slides 4, 5, and 7 in Portland’s 2007 annual transportation report: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44721&a=215540. For further reading, slides 13, 14 and 16 of the city’s 2008 report include some truly astonishing charts: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44721&a=214956

Michiganders must press for far more aggressive action to ensure the safety of all modes of transportation.