4 ms·

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

by 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.

by zahma 5y ago

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.