5 ms·

The list of potential actions another road user can do includes malicious punishment passing, failing to stop behind you, and intentional collisions. There is n

by nguoi 7y ago

The list of potential actions another road user can do includes malicious punishment passing, failing to stop behind you, and intentional collisions. There is nothing the rider can do to stop these without stopping riding altogether. You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. At some point, you have to trust others to obey the rules of the road. An article like this is not zero-sum, it doesn't have to make your riding any less defensive.

pedanticlawyer 7y ago
> You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. I wear a biker tailbone protector and a back protector + an helmet when I go snowboarding and I'm an amateur snowboarder at best that rarely goes in the park and rides at mediocre speed. Why I usually don't see cyclists wear some of them protections?
- nguoi 7y ago
  Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people. Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.
  - asjw 7y ago
    > Why don't drivers? They do in fact. This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... > Driving is the biggest killer of young people It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking. Anyways it's worse in US than Europe and it's much worse for male than for female. One could conclude that it's being a young male in the US that is actually dangerous. > Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience Assuming this is true, it is valid also for bikes or horses. > Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. The entire car is literally an armor! https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/car-safety-features.png https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/car-safety-fe... Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves? > Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road They don't.
    - nguoi 7y ago
      >It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking. It's not from being hit by cyclists. >This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates. >Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves? After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely. People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education. On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me. This thread assumes that exists, yet assumes the same doesn't exist for anyone who dies in a car crash. Why don't you wear a helmet when in a car? Infrastructure doesn't improve where I am because the nasty, tribalist rhetoric swipes any safety issues under the rug by assuming cyclist fault. You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves, thus categorising them in a tribe separate from your own. But I'm not separate from you: I'm a driver, too. Yet when I'm in a car with someone and they see a driver do something foolish, I never hear them call 'drivers' idiots, it's always about the singular person. The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important. (And the foolish things happen multiple times a day - I can guarantee I'll see someone speed when I drive home tonight) Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. An impression I get every time someone punish-passes me, or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path. And it's so tiring to be told it's my fault when I know how often I see people fail to obey the laws of the road at my expense.
      - walterstucco 7y ago
        > It's not from being hit by cyclists. cars are just the most common vehicle. For example in Australia 19.1% of all the transport related hospitalisations are for bike incidents. It's the same percentage for car related accident. Now count the total amount of miles traveled and the total number of each mean of transport and do the math. > Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates. That just proves that car safety is taken more seriously than bike safety. > After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely This doesn't answer the question "Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?" though. > . People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education What other countries? Can you provide names and numbers? > On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me And you are wrong. For example in Australia only 2% of the transport related hospitalisations are for motorbikes accident. Because they usually wear protections. > You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves I think it was a question, and you proved the poster right: why talking about protection for cyclists triggers this kind of emotionally charged responses? > The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important. I don't even own a car, I live in a city where most of the transport do not happen using motor vehicles, bikers don't usually wear protection and don't make their kids wear protections. Why? What are they afraid of? It's a simple question. > Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. That's always true, you have to tolerate and be tolerated. It's a shared infrastructure, it doesn't belong to anyone. > or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path If that's true, why don't you wear protections then? I don't understand.
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  1. Helmets are pretty common for road cyclist in places where the roads aren't super safe. Tailbone & back protection aren't super useful do to the kinds of accidents you get. 2. A big difference is downhill versus (mostly) flat. I only wear my helmet about 10-20% of the time when I'm ski touring. Downhill bikers wear all sorts of padding & protectors.
  - pedanticlawyer 7y ago
    > Tailbone & back protection aren't super useful do to the kinds of accidents you get. They are useful for the same kind of accidents that happen to motrocyclists: being hit by something or hitting something.

by nguoi 7y ago

pedanticlawyer 7y ago

> You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. I wear a biker tailbone protector and a back protector + an helmet when I go snowboarding and I'm an amateur snowboarder at best that rarely goes in the park and rides at mediocre speed. Why I usually don't see cyclists wear some of them protections?

nguoi 7y ago
Why don't drivers? Driving is the biggest killer of young people. Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience. Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road but I've never looked into it.
- asjw 7y ago
  > Why don't drivers? They do in fact. This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32... > Driving is the biggest killer of young people It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking. Anyways it's worse in US than Europe and it's much worse for male than for female. One could conclude that it's being a young male in the US that is actually dangerous. > Any vehicle you use for commuting is for convenience Assuming this is true, it is valid also for bikes or horses. > Strapping into armour makes it harder so we don't expect it of drivers while we do expect it of extreme sports. The entire car is literally an armor! https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/car-safety-features.png https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/car-safety-fe... Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves? > Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road They don't.
  - nguoi 7y ago
    >It is not driving, it's road traffic injuries, which includes biking. It's not from being hit by cyclists. >This is the list of the mandatory safety measures in Europe for motor vehicles, it's 24 pages long Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates. >Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves? After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely. People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education. On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me. This thread assumes that exists, yet assumes the same doesn't exist for anyone who dies in a car crash. Why don't you wear a helmet when in a car? Infrastructure doesn't improve where I am because the nasty, tribalist rhetoric swipes any safety issues under the rug by assuming cyclist fault. You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves, thus categorising them in a tribe separate from your own. But I'm not separate from you: I'm a driver, too. Yet when I'm in a car with someone and they see a driver do something foolish, I never hear them call 'drivers' idiots, it's always about the singular person. The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important. (And the foolish things happen multiple times a day - I can guarantee I'll see someone speed when I drive home tonight) Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. An impression I get every time someone punish-passes me, or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path. And it's so tiring to be told it's my fault when I know how often I see people fail to obey the laws of the road at my expense.
    - walterstucco 7y ago
      > It's not from being hit by cyclists. cars are just the most common vehicle. For example in Australia 19.1% of all the transport related hospitalisations are for bike incidents. It's the same percentage for car related accident. Now count the total amount of miles traveled and the total number of each mean of transport and do the math. > Quite a lot of it isn't, read articles 6 and 7 and the lists of implementation dates. That just proves that car safety is taken more seriously than bike safety. > After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to have them assume you're riding unsafely This doesn't answer the question "Why are cyclist so afraid of protecting themselves?" though. > . People in other countries manage much better safety records through infrastructure and education What other countries? Can you provide names and numbers? > On the contrary, I don't think there's any safety clothing I can wear that will save me if a car crashes into me And you are wrong. For example in Australia only 2% of the transport related hospitalisations are for motorbikes accident. Because they usually wear protections. > You've accused cyclists of being afraid of protecting themselves I think it was a question, and you proved the poster right: why talking about protection for cyclists triggers this kind of emotionally charged responses? > The tribalism makes you think of the other party as less important. I don't even own a car, I live in a city where most of the transport do not happen using motor vehicles, bikers don't usually wear protection and don't make their kids wear protections. Why? What are they afraid of? It's a simple question. > Accusing me of being afraid of protecting just gives me the impression that you feel I have to earn the right for you to tolerate me in the road. That's always true, you have to tolerate and be tolerated. It's a shared infrastructure, it doesn't belong to anyone. > or manoeuvres assuming a cyclist won't be in their path If that's true, why don't you wear protections then? I don't understand.
frenchyatwork 7y ago
1. Helmets are pretty common for road cyclist in places where the roads aren't super safe. Tailbone & back protection aren't super useful do to the kinds of accidents you get. 2. A big difference is downhill versus (mostly) flat. I only wear my helmet about 10-20% of the time when I'm ski touring. Downhill bikers wear all sorts of padding & protectors.
- pedanticlawyer 7y ago
  > Tailbone & back protection aren't super useful do to the kinds of accidents you get. They are useful for the same kind of accidents that happen to motrocyclists: being hit by something or hitting something.