3 ms·

> I was endangered by reckless cyclists more often than by reckless drivers. They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled

> I was endangered by reckless cyclists more often than by reckless drivers. They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled by a tiger.

inglor_cz 5y ago
> They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled by a tiger. Please do not downplay the risks of being hit by a 120 kg+ object moving at, say, 10-15 mph. It is similar to the risk that the cyclist himself faces if he suddenly falls of his bike, namely, brain damage from cracking your skull against the pavement. Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event. Sudden falls can be fairly dangerous, especially for older individuals. Maybe not a tiger, but a cougar. Definitely not a home cat. Not everyone can dodge in time. Some people are absent minded (and I would say this is their right when walking on a pavement). Some are old and arthritic. Some are kids. Some are blind or deaf. They need to be reasonably safe on a pavement, which means not sharing it with another sort of traffic that moves much faster than them. I am all for biking/cycling, but it really needs its own infrastructure. Most developed countries can afford it, it is not expensive to build a dedicated biking lane.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lmm 5y ago
  > Please do not downplay the risks of being hit by a 120 kg+ object moving at, say, 10-15 mph. It is similar to the risk that the cyclist himself faces if he suddenly falls of his bike, namely, brain damage from cracking your skull against the pavement. Please do not imply this is remotely comparable to the risks of being hit by a car. It is not. In that context, downplaying the risks of being hit by a bicycle is absolutely correct. > Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event. Cyclists in countries with decent road laws, such as the Netherlands, do not generally wear helmets. Cyclists in some countries wear helmets, mainly to protect themselves from bad laws passed by ignorant non-cyclists.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    Wearing a helmet is a good thing. Forcing people to wear a helmet is a bad thing. The former reduces risk for the wearer, the latter increases risk for cyclists as a whole indirectly.
    - lmm 5y ago
      It's misleading to imply that cyclists are (hypocritically) exposing pedestrians to a level of danger for which they would themselves want to wear a helmet. The level of danger of head injury that a cyclist or a nearby pedestrian is exposed to is below the level at which most people would feel a helmet was appropriate. (Notably, it's many times lower than the level that car drivers and passengers - people who do not normally feel a need to wear helmets - are exposed to).

> I was endangered by reckless cyclists more often than by reckless drivers. They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled by a tiger.

inglor_cz 5y ago

> They are similar in the same way being clawed by a cat is similar to being mauled by a tiger. Please do not downplay the risks of being hit by a 120 kg+ object moving at, say, 10-15 mph. It is similar to the risk that the cyclist himself faces if he suddenly falls of his bike, namely, brain damage from cracking your skull against the pavement. Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event. Sudden falls can be fairly dangerous, especially for older individuals. Maybe not a tiger, but a cougar. Definitely not a home cat. Not everyone can dodge in time. Some people are absent minded (and I would say this is their right when walking on a pavement). Some are old and arthritic. Some are kids. Some are blind or deaf. They need to be reasonably safe on a pavement, which means not sharing it with another sort of traffic that moves much faster than them. I am all for biking/cycling, but it really needs its own infrastructure. Most developed countries can afford it, it is not expensive to build a dedicated biking lane.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lmm 5y ago
> Please do not downplay the risks of being hit by a 120 kg+ object moving at, say, 10-15 mph. It is similar to the risk that the cyclist himself faces if he suddenly falls of his bike, namely, brain damage from cracking your skull against the pavement. Please do not imply this is remotely comparable to the risks of being hit by a car. It is not. In that context, downplaying the risks of being hit by a bicycle is absolutely correct. > Cyclists wear biking helmets to protect themselves against this possibly fatal event. Cyclists in countries with decent road laws, such as the Netherlands, do not generally wear helmets. Cyclists in some countries wear helmets, mainly to protect themselves from bad laws passed by ignorant non-cyclists.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Wearing a helmet is a good thing. Forcing people to wear a helmet is a bad thing. The former reduces risk for the wearer, the latter increases risk for cyclists as a whole indirectly.
  - lmm 5y ago
    It's misleading to imply that cyclists are (hypocritically) exposing pedestrians to a level of danger for which they would themselves want to wear a helmet. The level of danger of head injury that a cyclist or a nearby pedestrian is exposed to is below the level at which most people would feel a helmet was appropriate. (Notably, it's many times lower than the level that car drivers and passengers - people who do not normally feel a need to wear helmets - are exposed to).