4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - pedanticlawyer 7y ago
      > It's not from being hit by cyclists. It is included indeed. Being hit by cyclists is very common in places where bike density is high. For example: https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-pedestrians-and-the-city-wont-stop-it/ https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-ped... > After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to hav On my motorbike I wear helmet and protections anyway, before having people maliciously aim at me (because you know, accidents can happen even without malice...). Why are you so afraid to protect yourself?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > > Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road > They don't. Single sided bicycle accidents are pretty common.
    - walterstucco 7y ago
      You made a joke, good for you, but the reality is not a joke at all. At this link you will find official stats from EU for 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs20xx_cyclists.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/... Bikes are dangerous (for bikers most of all) and, unexpectedly, countries with more bikes and with better biking infrastructures have higher mortality rates. For example Italy is safer than Holland or Germany and the majority of fatalities happen in the age range 50-65+, because bikes are inherently dangerous for old people (a lot more than cars). And in practically every country men are dominating the rankings. EU average is 80% men 20% women. If you think that in Italy in 2018 there have been 172.344 accidents, causing 3.325 deaths it means that only 1,9% of the accidents cause a death. That's quite safe if you ask me, especially if you consider the total number of kilometers traveled. The statistics must be improved, but it's good nonetheless. In the same period 275 bike fatalities were registered, it means that ~1 death every 10 is a bike related accident. If you think that Italy has the highest ratio of car owned in the entire west (more than US) at 89% and it is safer than other bike friendly countries like Germany or the Netherlands, it is quite easy to conclude that cars are safer than bikes. Another interesting data point is "Accident Causation" ~20% of the accidents are caused by ‘incorrect direction’ by the biker, while `other drivers/bikers in bicycle accidents` have taken ‘incorrect direction’ only 2% of the time. ‘incorrect direction’ refers to (I will quote the study here) > ‘Incorrect direction’ refers to a manoeuvre being carried out in the wrong direction (for example, turning left instead of right) or leaving the road (not following the intended direction of the road). ‘Premature action’ describes a critical event with an action started too early, before a signal was given or required conditions established. It looks like imprudence by the bikers causes at least 20% of the accidents. Another 20% is caused by `premature actions` that refers to > ‘Premature action’ describes a critical event with an action started too early, before a signal was given or required conditions established. Bikers are also more subject to fractures and open wounds Fracture bikers: 34% Fracture all modes of transport: 27% Open wound bikers: 13% Open wounds all modes of transport: 10% So the question remains: why most of the time bikers don't wear any kind of protection? Could it be because it's a majority of males and the testosterone in their bodies is known for promoting risk-taking behavior? Could it be that countries with bike-only infrastructures promote taking more risks because are publicised as "safer" but they really are not? Could it simply be that women are just wiser?
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.

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.
  - pedanticlawyer 7y ago
    > It's not from being hit by cyclists. It is included indeed. Being hit by cyclists is very common in places where bike density is high. For example: https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-pedestrians-and-the-city-wont-stop-it/ https://nypost.com/2019/08/31/nyc-bicyclists-are-killing-ped... > After having people maliciously aim their car at you for being in front of them, it's quite patronising to hav On my motorbike I wear helmet and protections anyway, before having people maliciously aim at me (because you know, accidents can happen even without malice...). Why are you so afraid to protect yourself?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > > Supposedly the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of the road > They don't. Single sided bicycle accidents are pretty common.
  - walterstucco 7y ago
    You made a joke, good for you, but the reality is not a joke at all. At this link you will find official stats from EU for 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs20xx_cyclists.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/... Bikes are dangerous (for bikers most of all) and, unexpectedly, countries with more bikes and with better biking infrastructures have higher mortality rates. For example Italy is safer than Holland or Germany and the majority of fatalities happen in the age range 50-65+, because bikes are inherently dangerous for old people (a lot more than cars). And in practically every country men are dominating the rankings. EU average is 80% men 20% women. If you think that in Italy in 2018 there have been 172.344 accidents, causing 3.325 deaths it means that only 1,9% of the accidents cause a death. That's quite safe if you ask me, especially if you consider the total number of kilometers traveled. The statistics must be improved, but it's good nonetheless. In the same period 275 bike fatalities were registered, it means that ~1 death every 10 is a bike related accident. If you think that Italy has the highest ratio of car owned in the entire west (more than US) at 89% and it is safer than other bike friendly countries like Germany or the Netherlands, it is quite easy to conclude that cars are safer than bikes. Another interesting data point is "Accident Causation" ~20% of the accidents are caused by ‘incorrect direction’ by the biker, while `other drivers/bikers in bicycle accidents` have taken ‘incorrect direction’ only 2% of the time. ‘incorrect direction’ refers to (I will quote the study here) > ‘Incorrect direction’ refers to a manoeuvre being carried out in the wrong direction (for example, turning left instead of right) or leaving the road (not following the intended direction of the road). ‘Premature action’ describes a critical event with an action started too early, before a signal was given or required conditions established. It looks like imprudence by the bikers causes at least 20% of the accidents. Another 20% is caused by `premature actions` that refers to > ‘Premature action’ describes a critical event with an action started too early, before a signal was given or required conditions established. Bikers are also more subject to fractures and open wounds Fracture bikers: 34% Fracture all modes of transport: 27% Open wound bikers: 13% Open wounds all modes of transport: 10% So the question remains: why most of the time bikers don't wear any kind of protection? Could it be because it's a majority of males and the testosterone in their bodies is known for promoting risk-taking behavior? Could it be that countries with bike-only infrastructures promote taking more risks because are publicised as "safer" but they really are not? Could it simply be that women are just wiser?

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.