4 ms·

Downhill mountain biking or something similar maybe, casually cycling along a trail isn't really anymore likely to course traumatic brain injuries than jogging.

by jamil7 7y ago

Downhill mountain biking or something similar maybe, casually cycling along a trail isn't really anymore likely to course traumatic brain injuries than jogging. Cars are the only reason cycling in a city is dangerous. Once you introduce helmets as a requirement you put cycling firmly into the category of some kind of risky sport, making it difficult for it to become a casual, normal thing that people do in everyday clothes, like driving a car. (I wear a helmet fwiw).

willis936 7y ago
I disagree. Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed. Jogging at 6 mph is simply an order of magnitude less dangerous than biking at 20 mph. This isn’t a simple footnote. You make a mistake while jogging and you scrape a knee. You make a mistake while biking and you may have your mental faculties permanently reduced and lifelong personality issues that drive loved ones away. Barrier to entry isn’t worth arguing about. It’s simply the safety precautions that need to be taken.
- jamil7 7y ago
  We're talking about a barrier to entry to casual cycling here, people commuting in work clothes are not going to be able to reach speeds of 20mph in a busy city, if they do it's up to them to decide whether or a not they should wear a helmet.
  - willis936 7y ago
    Then there should be an enforced speed limit for cyclers not wearing helmets. There is a delicate balance between personal freedom and the greater good. Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a good idea. Helmets have moved into the same category and I think they should stay there. The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks.
    - Aengeuad 7y ago
      Bicycles are not motorcycles, the risk for injury is not so much with speed but instead with collisions between other (primarily motor) vehicles and the types of surfaces cycled on i.e., pavement. There's also a significant socio-economic influence on injury rates, cycling in a city like Delphi with poor road infrastructure and worse general road safety is significantly more dangerous than cycling in any Dutch city with world class cycling infrastructure. Helmets are obviously essential for reducing serious head injuries (although they're less effective than generally advertised[0]) and parents/individuals should strongly consider using them, but legislation should be focused on improving road safety through education, community outreach, and infrastructure design long before it starts to seriously restrict personal liberty and hampering adoption of better modes of transport. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, etc, have all showed that you can have world class cycling cities without requiring helmet use. >Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a that good idea. This is a dangerous misconception, unbelted rear passengers seriously increase the risk of fatal injuries for the driver and front passengers[1] and in general increase the overall amount of injuries, which should be obvious when you consider that unrestrained passengers essentially become ragdoll missiles in the event of a crash. [0] https://sciencenordic.com/cars-and-traffic-cycling-denmark/bike-helmets-are-less-effective-than-we-think/1394145 https://sciencenordic.com/cars-and-traffic-cycling-denmark/b... [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1380376/Unbelted-rear-passengers-biggest-danger-in-crash.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/138037...
    - baumy 7y ago
      > The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks. Every study I've ever seen contradicts your statement here. You are all over this thread making strong, sweeping claims about bike safety and your only supporting data point seems to be "KE = 1/2mv^2". But there are entire cities in Europe where biking with no helmet is the norm, lots of people do it every day, and serious accidents are all but unheard of - there are other comments on this post with citations to back that up. There is also evidence that getting more people out biking increases bike safety more than anything else [1], and requiring helmets for everyone at all times makes this very difficult to achieve. Please stop passing off your gut feeling as fact, it is spreading misinformation and - though I know it seems counterintuitive - actually making biking less safe. To be clear, kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity is a fact, that fact's impact on real world bike safety is a much more complicated question. Disclaimer for what it's worth - I've been biking to and from either work, school or social events about once a day for the past 11 years, and I almost always wear a helmet :) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-more-cyclists-in-a-country-the-fewer-fatal-crashes-report-infographic http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-mor...
- rapnie 7y ago
  > Barrier to entry isn’t worth arguing about. It’s simply the safety precautions that need to be taken. It's both. Safety doesn't necessarily require helmets, as Netherlands and Danmark demonstrate. I imagine barrier to entry by requiring helmets would be a huge blow to bicycle culture here.
- JibJabDab 7y ago
  20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph. You need to change your frame of mind to be more inclusive as it seems you're thinking of people decked out in biking shorts/jerseys with water bottles and all geared up. The context we are talking about here is not that kind of biking. Also keep in mind, jogging can cause traumatic injuries. But I agree, biking does pose more risk as you have less control than being on your feet.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph. Maybe if your country is flat as a pancake. If there's hills, then yes, people really can hit 20mph, even with casual bikes.
    - brnt 7y ago
      You are perhaps confusing the sport of cycling with cycling-the-mode-of-transport. When I lived abroad, it seemed very difficult for people to understand the nuance, and difficult to see how missing the nuance was holding back bike-usage in commuting. In NL, the average is ~20kph for muscle-powered bikes on bikes like [1]. Sports bikes like [2] are not usually used in commutes and considered as dangerous as scooters if used at speeds of 20mph. E-bikes legislation takes 25kph as the limit above which the cyclist is required to follow certain extra rules, and of course muscle-powered cyclist reaching that speed should perhaps also be legislated accordingly. The reason it isn't is difficulty of enforcement, but there are people advocating a maximum speed for bike infrastructure [3], at 25pkh. [1] https://omidbikes.nl/wp-content/uploads/mat-zwart-7.jpg https://omidbikes.nl/wp-content/uploads/mat-zwart-7.jpg [2] https://s3-wielrennen-xjspucykgif.netdna-ssl.com/welke_wielrenfiets_kiezen.jpg https://s3-wielrennen-xjspucykgif.netdna-ssl.com/welke_wielr... [3] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/een-maximum-snelheid-op-het-fietspad-2/ https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/een-maximum-snelheid-op-h...

by jamil7 7y ago

willis936 7y ago

I disagree. Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed. Jogging at 6 mph is simply an order of magnitude less dangerous than biking at 20 mph. This isn’t a simple footnote. You make a mistake while jogging and you scrape a knee. You make a mistake while biking and you may have your mental faculties permanently reduced and lifelong personality issues that drive loved ones away. Barrier to entry isn’t worth arguing about. It’s simply the safety precautions that need to be taken.

jamil7 7y ago
We're talking about a barrier to entry to casual cycling here, people commuting in work clothes are not going to be able to reach speeds of 20mph in a busy city, if they do it's up to them to decide whether or a not they should wear a helmet.
- willis936 7y ago
  Then there should be an enforced speed limit for cyclers not wearing helmets. There is a delicate balance between personal freedom and the greater good. Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a good idea. Helmets have moved into the same category and I think they should stay there. The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks.
  - Aengeuad 7y ago
    Bicycles are not motorcycles, the risk for injury is not so much with speed but instead with collisions between other (primarily motor) vehicles and the types of surfaces cycled on i.e., pavement. There's also a significant socio-economic influence on injury rates, cycling in a city like Delphi with poor road infrastructure and worse general road safety is significantly more dangerous than cycling in any Dutch city with world class cycling infrastructure. Helmets are obviously essential for reducing serious head injuries (although they're less effective than generally advertised[0]) and parents/individuals should strongly consider using them, but legislation should be focused on improving road safety through education, community outreach, and infrastructure design long before it starts to seriously restrict personal liberty and hampering adoption of better modes of transport. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, etc, have all showed that you can have world class cycling cities without requiring helmet use. >Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a that good idea. This is a dangerous misconception, unbelted rear passengers seriously increase the risk of fatal injuries for the driver and front passengers[1] and in general increase the overall amount of injuries, which should be obvious when you consider that unrestrained passengers essentially become ragdoll missiles in the event of a crash. [0] https://sciencenordic.com/cars-and-traffic-cycling-denmark/bike-helmets-are-less-effective-than-we-think/1394145 https://sciencenordic.com/cars-and-traffic-cycling-denmark/b... [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1380376/Unbelted-rear-passengers-biggest-danger-in-crash.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/138037...
  - baumy 7y ago
    > The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks. Every study I've ever seen contradicts your statement here. You are all over this thread making strong, sweeping claims about bike safety and your only supporting data point seems to be "KE = 1/2mv^2". But there are entire cities in Europe where biking with no helmet is the norm, lots of people do it every day, and serious accidents are all but unheard of - there are other comments on this post with citations to back that up. There is also evidence that getting more people out biking increases bike safety more than anything else [1], and requiring helmets for everyone at all times makes this very difficult to achieve. Please stop passing off your gut feeling as fact, it is spreading misinformation and - though I know it seems counterintuitive - actually making biking less safe. To be clear, kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity is a fact, that fact's impact on real world bike safety is a much more complicated question. Disclaimer for what it's worth - I've been biking to and from either work, school or social events about once a day for the past 11 years, and I almost always wear a helmet :) [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-more-cyclists-in-a-country-the-fewer-fatal-crashes-report-infographic http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-mor...
rapnie 7y ago
> Barrier to entry isn’t worth arguing about. It’s simply the safety precautions that need to be taken. It's both. Safety doesn't necessarily require helmets, as Netherlands and Danmark demonstrate. I imagine barrier to entry by requiring helmets would be a huge blow to bicycle culture here.
JibJabDab 7y ago
20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph. You need to change your frame of mind to be more inclusive as it seems you're thinking of people decked out in biking shorts/jerseys with water bottles and all geared up. The context we are talking about here is not that kind of biking. Also keep in mind, jogging can cause traumatic injuries. But I agree, biking does pose more risk as you have less control than being on your feet.
- magduf 7y ago
  >20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph. Maybe if your country is flat as a pancake. If there's hills, then yes, people really can hit 20mph, even with casual bikes.
  - brnt 7y ago
    You are perhaps confusing the sport of cycling with cycling-the-mode-of-transport. When I lived abroad, it seemed very difficult for people to understand the nuance, and difficult to see how missing the nuance was holding back bike-usage in commuting. In NL, the average is ~20kph for muscle-powered bikes on bikes like [1]. Sports bikes like [2] are not usually used in commutes and considered as dangerous as scooters if used at speeds of 20mph. E-bikes legislation takes 25kph as the limit above which the cyclist is required to follow certain extra rules, and of course muscle-powered cyclist reaching that speed should perhaps also be legislated accordingly. The reason it isn't is difficulty of enforcement, but there are people advocating a maximum speed for bike infrastructure [3], at 25pkh. [1] https://omidbikes.nl/wp-content/uploads/mat-zwart-7.jpg https://omidbikes.nl/wp-content/uploads/mat-zwart-7.jpg [2] https://s3-wielrennen-xjspucykgif.netdna-ssl.com/welke_wielrenfiets_kiezen.jpg https://s3-wielrennen-xjspucykgif.netdna-ssl.com/welke_wielr... [3] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/een-maximum-snelheid-op-het-fietspad-2/ https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/een-maximum-snelheid-op-h...