4 ms·
To be clear - any cyclist crazy enough to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars definitely needs all the protection they can get, I think that goes without sa
by ghshephard 10y ago
To be clear - any cyclist crazy enough to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars definitely needs all the protection they can get, I think that goes without saying. But now you've moved from the "extraordinary low risk of accident" that comes from cycling to the "Probably one of the most dangerous things I can do" risk factor.
And, pretty much 100% of the time I go snowboarding, I wear a helmet.
What I'm trying to surface (apparently poorly) is that life, to some degree, is about managing risks. And we often respond carte blanche scenarios with exactly the same response, regardless of whether it's proportionally required.
Cycling - on road, moving fast, around anything else moving fast, at all treacherous conditions - sure, yes wear a helmet. But, casual cycling on a nice day, protected path - probably not required.
Another area of proportional risk response - portable devices on planes. At one time, end of the world if you had one on during takeout (seriously, other passengers would freak out if they thought yours was on) - and then, all of a sudden - every airport/airline in the United States lets you read your kindle, play games on your phone. People realized their responses were not proportionate to the risk.
- jabl 10y agoHuh? Over here at least, people (me included) cycle on the same road as cars all the time. Not freeways, of course, but normal city roads with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. It's actually illegal to cycle on the sidewalk unless there's an explicit traffic sign allowing bicycles.
- baq 10y agoNetherlands doesn't count, it's a place where cars respect bikes and vice versa. Try riding a bicycle in a country where there's hostility between the two.
- ghshephard 10y agoYou could not pay me to rid a bicycle on the road here in Singapore. Or in many places in Northern California. I can't tell you about Dubai, because I've never seen a cyclist on the road there. My "Risk Mitigation" strategy in these scenarios is to say, "No, Hell No." Regarding the law - it's illegal in Redwood City to ride on the sidewalk, but almost 100% of "Utility" cyclists (that is, people taking short trips who aren't decked out in "cyclist" gear) almost always ride on the sidewalk; and the police certainly did not make it a priority to ticket them - and given the density of police cars in Redwood City, any given cyclist traveling a few kilometers was likely to be seen by one, if not more police officers.
- dantillberg 10y agoWhen I lived in Boston, it was certainly legal to ride bicycles in the road (and illegal to ride them on many sidewalks), but cyclists still got hit by cars all the time. Riding with cars (whether in your own "lane" sandwiched between parked cars and moving cars, or in the same lane as the cars that want to bolt ahead at 40 mph whenever they have the chance) is the only legal option to get around by bike, but is absolutely not safe. It's one of the places where I think our legal code is absolutely bats--t crazy.
- umanwizard 10y agoWhere the fuck are you supposed to ride them, then? Sure I'd love it if cities built separated bike paths everywhere people want to commute, but that's far from reality currently
- paulmd 10y ago> the "extraordinary low risk of accident" that comes from cycling No, bicycling is fairly high-risk in general, like skiing, or any other sport that involves a human body travelling faster than the average set of legs can walk it around. Even just going around the block a few times there's always the chance of some random events leading to an unfortunate encounter with a tree. Of course, it's not skydiving either. And life is a series of risks, I'm not saying don't do it.