This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alan Wachtel, MS
Palo Alto, Calif

JAMA. 1995;274(12):939-940.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Preventing bicycle-related injuries is an interest shared by the medical, engineering, and bicycle advocacy communities. The Council on Scientific Affairs¹ report offers the welcome observation that this goal can be accomplished by primary measures to prevent crashes and collisions, including educational and engineering approaches, as well as by the use of helmets to mitigate injuries incurred in crashes.

One topic deserves further discussion. Twice the report recommends separation of pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle traffic streams, calling it an "ideal but difficult-to-achieve engineering [approach] to injury prevention." That this separation is difficult to achieve is true, but that it is ideal is only partially correct.

Separating bicyclists from pedestrians is sound engineering practice. But while it seems plausible that bicycle—motor vehicle collisions could be prevented by maximizing the separation of bicycles from motor vehicles, this is not so.² In addition to the obvious conflicts with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?