5 ms·

Unpopular Opinion: Bicycles are far too dangerous for humans to drive. Collisions are inevitable and when they do happen, they can be debilitating. For me, it'

Unpopular Opinion: Bicycles are far too dangerous for humans to drive. Collisions are inevitable and when they do happen, they can be debilitating. For me, it's never worth the risk. Everybody I know who rides bikes long enough has a story to tell.

zahma 5y ago
Do you also not drive a car because of the risk? Humans have to get places quickly, and a bike is a great bit of technology. (I also just simply enjoy riding my bike.) Given the choice between choosing one mode of transportation for all, would you still say the same about bikes? The number of road deaths involving cars makes a pretty compelling case that cars are much harder for humans to control than bikes.[1] 38,680 people died because humans can’t be trusted in cars. I’d even wager that bike accidents and deaths would be fewer if cyclists didn’t share the road with humans in cars. 1-https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...
- hawaiianbrah 5y ago
  Amen! It is all about choices and in the grand scheme I feel bikes are a fantastic choice.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  It's not about avoiding risk completely. That's impossible. It's about considering trade-offs, looking at statistics, and deciding what a life is worth. Your odds of dying from a bicycle accident are much higher than dying from a car accident. In fact, you're twice as likely to die from a bicycle. The CDC did a study on this and a rather thorough one at that. The only activity more dangerous was riding a motorcycle.[1] This is because engineers have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the amount of energy a human absorbs during a car collision. It's not perfect, but it's superior to the lack of protection offered when bicycling. I'm not saying you have to stop riding a bicycle. I'm saying, you should know it is a dangerous activity and consider life insurance if you have a family. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-safe-is-bike-commuting-perhaps-less-than-you-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf...
  - sfe22 5y ago
    Just twice as likely? I would have guessed much worse.
  - rsfern 5y ago
    I agree that it’s important to understand the risks and ride accordingly. I do wish the US would prioritize cyclists and pedestrian safety more though > engineers have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the amount of energy a human absorbs during a car collision. It's not perfect, but it's superior to the lack of protection offered when bicycling. This is aimed at protecting the occupants of the vehicle, but some of the more recent design trends (thicker a frame pillars, higher center of gravity) make collisions even more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. I’m not saying those features of cars are a bad thing, but I feel like compensating for the extra risk to pedestrians and cyclists has not gotten as much engineering attention as it should. It’s tough because it’s a broader problem that has to do with how we design roads, and the attitudes people have when they get behind the wheel
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    Fortunately, it doesn't need to be so. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark have invested heavily in road safety in general and bicycle safety in particular. By taking many measures among which things like: physically separating bicycles from cars, reducing speed limits, introducing traffic calming, and conversely by building better highways for the cars to use instead ; these countries have been making bicycling something that is very safe for people of all ages. (and en passant may have also made walking and driving safer too)
  - zahma 5y ago
    I’m well aware of the dangers. All of my bike accidents involved cars. There’s inherent peril in sharing the road with varying speeds and sizes. Not to mention humans turn into sociopaths on their vehicles of choice, especially after these pandemic years. It’s peculiar to perseverate on how bikes are so unsafe compared to vehicles when such a high proportion of cycling injuries and deaths are because humans are bad at driving or not respectful of rules meant to protect everyone on the road. I’m asserting that because it’s not like humans are just spontaneously falling off their bikes and dying. Sure an errant and reckless cyclist can get him/herself killed by running a light, but if cars were never there, would we even be having this conversation? I know the original point was that riding a bike can be dangerous, more so than driving a car, but you can’t examine cyclist security without talking about humans in cars.
recursive 5y ago
Is there anything worth doing that doesn't have a risk? I know this is a shallow dismissal. I've been biking long enough to have such stories to tell. But I'm so glad for it. I wouldn't trade it.
scooble 5y ago
Too dangerous compared to what? Cars? If we replaced all the cars with bikes would you expect injuries/deaths to increase or decrease?
Nursie 5y ago
It's unpopular because it's ridiculous. When there's proper infrastructue (i.e. away from cars) there's minimal risk. Cars, cars are too dangerous for humans to drive.
prawn 5y ago
I'm guessing a lot of those dangerous collisions involve cars though. Could be that they're the mode dangerous for humans?
rejor121 5y ago
No, _cars_ are too dangerous. I can count on one hand and not reach the fifth finger where I’ve witnessed cycling accidents that never involved a car. Cars on the other hand, have been the cause of crashes or accidents for any mode of transportation. Fortunately I’ve never been hit by a car, but have had to dodge out of the way of them in situations that would have been prevented if they actually paid attention ( one time, they were driving on my side of the road while staring at their phone ).
occz 5y ago
Bicycling on its own is not really an issue. The issue is cars, the truly dangerous mode of transportation, and any solution starts with a reduction in the harm they bring. Getting rid of the most energy-efficient mode of transportation, one that has a miniscule impact on the climate, to accommodate the most destructive form of transportation, both from a human lives lost-perspective and an environmental perspective, would be completely inane.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  Eliminating cars would not reduce the risk of falling from a bicycle due to imperfection in the road, delayed reaction time, other bicyclists, etc. The flaw is in the design itself. I'm not saying we need to eliminate bicycling. People can skydive if they want to and they can ride their bicycles outdoor as well if they desire.
  - atoav 5y ago
    It is a thousand times more likely for you to die in a car or because of a car than because you fell of your bike (provided you wear a helmet).
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      If you have to wear a helmet, the bicycling infrastructure isn't safe enough (yet). Traffic engineers can well and truly be proud of themselves when people simply don't bother to wear a helmet anymore (because it's not needed). See eg: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003-zdZA8hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003-zdZA8hk Copenhagen: Few helmets * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqFDfLogw_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqFDfLogw_M Strassbourg: a bit more helmets (but not a lot) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 Utrecht, the Netherlands. Very few helmets indeed.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Yet life expectancy for cyclists is higher than for non-cyclists.
AlecSchueler 5y ago
Yet in the Netherlands where people cycle multiple times daily for decades, accidents are very rare. Your problem isn't with bicycles, it's with cars and bad infrastructure.
yodelshady 5y ago
Unpopular because it's victim-blaming and awful. If party A operating multiple tonnes of high-speed steel hurts party B who is not, the dangerous party is party A. They might have been careful enough to discharge any direct liability, but they are *always* the party who bought multiple tonnes of high-speed steel into the situation.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  No, I'm not blaming human bicyclists for getting hit by cars. I'm blaming the design itself. If you fall at even moderate speeds, irrespective of whether it's a car, concrete, another bicyclists, or the ground, you will get hurt. Humans do not have the reaction time or biological features necessary to mitigate the damage from falling or careening over the handlebars at 10mph.
  - conradludgate 5y ago
    I've not seen anyone cycling at normal speeds fall off like that before. It's always a result of swerving because of someone else, or because they're going too fast and the aerodynamics take over their steering. The most I've done is lost a saddle because the force of me sitting down while cycling over a pot hole I didn't see snapped it off. I have however seen many cyclists go over car bonnits, including myself
atoav 5y ago
I use both since roughly two decades and can assure you that the grand majority of near death experiences happened in a car. And I am a daily bicycle commuter in a big city — while I rarely use any car in the past years. The big majority of dangerous situations on bike can be defused by a combination of anticipation and following the rules (always be in the place you should be, not somwhere else, always assume nobody notices you etc). I had a single emergency break in the past 5 years and that was litterally someone jumping out of a bush in the middle of nowhere.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
Collisions are inevitable unless roads are designed to prevent them. Roads, bicycle paths, and footpaths (and railroads and canals and etc) need to be designed in such a way that traveling is safe and economic for ALL traffic participants. Not just one particular type of vehicle. So far this policy only exists in a few countries in the world, but the concepts are slowly spreading elsewhere. Never quickly enough of course!

zahma 5y ago

Do you also not drive a car because of the risk? Humans have to get places quickly, and a bike is a great bit of technology. (I also just simply enjoy riding my bike.) Given the choice between choosing one mode of transportation for all, would you still say the same about bikes? The number of road deaths involving cars makes a pretty compelling case that cars are much harder for humans to control than bikes.[1] 38,680 people died because humans can’t be trusted in cars. I’d even wager that bike accidents and deaths would be fewer if cyclists didn’t share the road with humans in cars. 1-https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show...

hawaiianbrah 5y ago
Amen! It is all about choices and in the grand scheme I feel bikes are a fantastic choice.
DantesKite 5y ago
It's not about avoiding risk completely. That's impossible. It's about considering trade-offs, looking at statistics, and deciding what a life is worth. Your odds of dying from a bicycle accident are much higher than dying from a car accident. In fact, you're twice as likely to die from a bicycle. The CDC did a study on this and a rather thorough one at that. The only activity more dangerous was riding a motorcycle.[1] This is because engineers have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the amount of energy a human absorbs during a car collision. It's not perfect, but it's superior to the lack of protection offered when bicycling. I'm not saying you have to stop riding a bicycle. I'm saying, you should know it is a dangerous activity and consider life insurance if you have a family. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-safe-is-bike-commuting-perhaps-less-than-you-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf...
- sfe22 5y ago
  Just twice as likely? I would have guessed much worse.
- rsfern 5y ago
  I agree that it’s important to understand the risks and ride accordingly. I do wish the US would prioritize cyclists and pedestrian safety more though > engineers have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the amount of energy a human absorbs during a car collision. It's not perfect, but it's superior to the lack of protection offered when bicycling. This is aimed at protecting the occupants of the vehicle, but some of the more recent design trends (thicker a frame pillars, higher center of gravity) make collisions even more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. I’m not saying those features of cars are a bad thing, but I feel like compensating for the extra risk to pedestrians and cyclists has not gotten as much engineering attention as it should. It’s tough because it’s a broader problem that has to do with how we design roads, and the attitudes people have when they get behind the wheel
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  Fortunately, it doesn't need to be so. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark have invested heavily in road safety in general and bicycle safety in particular. By taking many measures among which things like: physically separating bicycles from cars, reducing speed limits, introducing traffic calming, and conversely by building better highways for the cars to use instead ; these countries have been making bicycling something that is very safe for people of all ages. (and en passant may have also made walking and driving safer too)
- zahma 5y ago
  I’m well aware of the dangers. All of my bike accidents involved cars. There’s inherent peril in sharing the road with varying speeds and sizes. Not to mention humans turn into sociopaths on their vehicles of choice, especially after these pandemic years. It’s peculiar to perseverate on how bikes are so unsafe compared to vehicles when such a high proportion of cycling injuries and deaths are because humans are bad at driving or not respectful of rules meant to protect everyone on the road. I’m asserting that because it’s not like humans are just spontaneously falling off their bikes and dying. Sure an errant and reckless cyclist can get him/herself killed by running a light, but if cars were never there, would we even be having this conversation? I know the original point was that riding a bike can be dangerous, more so than driving a car, but you can’t examine cyclist security without talking about humans in cars.

recursive 5y ago

Is there anything worth doing that doesn't have a risk? I know this is a shallow dismissal. I've been biking long enough to have such stories to tell. But I'm so glad for it. I wouldn't trade it.

scooble 5y ago

Too dangerous compared to what? Cars? If we replaced all the cars with bikes would you expect injuries/deaths to increase or decrease?

Nursie 5y ago

It's unpopular because it's ridiculous. When there's proper infrastructue (i.e. away from cars) there's minimal risk. Cars, cars are too dangerous for humans to drive.

prawn 5y ago

I'm guessing a lot of those dangerous collisions involve cars though. Could be that they're the mode dangerous for humans?

rejor121 5y ago

No, _cars_ are too dangerous. I can count on one hand and not reach the fifth finger where I’ve witnessed cycling accidents that never involved a car. Cars on the other hand, have been the cause of crashes or accidents for any mode of transportation. Fortunately I’ve never been hit by a car, but have had to dodge out of the way of them in situations that would have been prevented if they actually paid attention ( one time, they were driving on my side of the road while staring at their phone ).

occz 5y ago

Bicycling on its own is not really an issue. The issue is cars, the truly dangerous mode of transportation, and any solution starts with a reduction in the harm they bring. Getting rid of the most energy-efficient mode of transportation, one that has a miniscule impact on the climate, to accommodate the most destructive form of transportation, both from a human lives lost-perspective and an environmental perspective, would be completely inane.

DantesKite 5y ago
Eliminating cars would not reduce the risk of falling from a bicycle due to imperfection in the road, delayed reaction time, other bicyclists, etc. The flaw is in the design itself. I'm not saying we need to eliminate bicycling. People can skydive if they want to and they can ride their bicycles outdoor as well if they desire.
- atoav 5y ago
  It is a thousand times more likely for you to die in a car or because of a car than because you fell of your bike (provided you wear a helmet).
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    If you have to wear a helmet, the bicycling infrastructure isn't safe enough (yet). Traffic engineers can well and truly be proud of themselves when people simply don't bother to wear a helmet anymore (because it's not needed). See eg: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003-zdZA8hk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003-zdZA8hk Copenhagen: Few helmets * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqFDfLogw_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqFDfLogw_M Strassbourg: a bit more helmets (but not a lot) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8 Utrecht, the Netherlands. Very few helmets indeed.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

Yet life expectancy for cyclists is higher than for non-cyclists.

AlecSchueler 5y ago

Yet in the Netherlands where people cycle multiple times daily for decades, accidents are very rare. Your problem isn't with bicycles, it's with cars and bad infrastructure.

yodelshady 5y ago

Unpopular because it's victim-blaming and awful. If party A operating multiple tonnes of high-speed steel hurts party B who is not, the dangerous party is party A. They might have been careful enough to discharge any direct liability, but they are *always* the party who bought multiple tonnes of high-speed steel into the situation.

DantesKite 5y ago
No, I'm not blaming human bicyclists for getting hit by cars. I'm blaming the design itself. If you fall at even moderate speeds, irrespective of whether it's a car, concrete, another bicyclists, or the ground, you will get hurt. Humans do not have the reaction time or biological features necessary to mitigate the damage from falling or careening over the handlebars at 10mph.
- conradludgate 5y ago
  I've not seen anyone cycling at normal speeds fall off like that before. It's always a result of swerving because of someone else, or because they're going too fast and the aerodynamics take over their steering. The most I've done is lost a saddle because the force of me sitting down while cycling over a pot hole I didn't see snapped it off. I have however seen many cyclists go over car bonnits, including myself

atoav 5y ago

I use both since roughly two decades and can assure you that the grand majority of near death experiences happened in a car. And I am a daily bicycle commuter in a big city — while I rarely use any car in the past years. The big majority of dangerous situations on bike can be defused by a combination of anticipation and following the rules (always be in the place you should be, not somwhere else, always assume nobody notices you etc). I had a single emergency break in the past 5 years and that was litterally someone jumping out of a bush in the middle of nowhere.

Kim_Bruning 5y ago

Collisions are inevitable unless roads are designed to prevent them. Roads, bicycle paths, and footpaths (and railroads and canals and etc) need to be designed in such a way that traveling is safe and economic for ALL traffic participants. Not just one particular type of vehicle. So far this policy only exists in a few countries in the world, but the concepts are slowly spreading elsewhere. Never quickly enough of course!