6 ms·

At an individual level, helmet wearing makes sense, but at a societal level, designing infrastructure better is where it's at in terms of keeping people safe, a

by davidw 4y ago

At an individual level, helmet wearing makes sense, but at a societal level, designing infrastructure better is where it's at in terms of keeping people safe, and that's probably a far bigger win.

toast0 4y ago
As a sometimes frequent cyclist, I'm hoping a helmet is going to protect me from solo accidents more than car v bike; better bike infrastructure isn't going to help much with solo accidents (although it would eliminate trolley rail v bike, so there's one). Actually, if there was better infrastructure, I'd probably be able to travel at higher speed, and therefore have more danger in solo accidents. Making me ride on the shitty pavement at the edge of the road, and watch out for cars everywhere slows me down, and reduces my danger. :P In car v bike, a helmet may or may not help, I'm definitely going to lose, either way. Thankfully, I've never had a car v bike, but I've had plenty of solo crashes, although I think I've been lucky enough not to hit my head.
- davidw 4y ago
  > Making me ride on the shitty pavement at the edge of the road, and watch out for cars everywhere slows me down, and reduces my danger. :P Statistically, it does not.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > Actually, if there was better infrastructure, I'd probably be able to travel at higher speed, and therefore have more danger in solo accidents. That really doesn't happen in the Netherlands, however. I mean, ya, those grannies on bikes seem aggressive, but they aren't going very fast, Dutch bikers wearing suits are not like Americans bikers wearing spandex. Biking as a normalized transportation thing means speed isn't as common compared to biking as some kind of recreational sport.
FrontierPsych 4y ago
I never understood the whole "designing infrastructure better" thing. Most large cities are fully built out. You can't design infrastructure better as the infrastructure is already there. Maybe on brand new places being built, but that won't help Chicago or San Francisco or Los Angeles. You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side. It's the same with public transportation as well, especially light rail. To put in light rail in some cities, you would have to rip up tens of thousands of homes and businesses. I never did get this whole argument. It's like saying that you should make a better infrastructure for the human body. I for one, would like it if my anus would be right over my achilles tendon, that way if I shit my pants, it wouldn't dribble all down my leg, it would just be there on the ground already with minimum fuss.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > the infrastructure is already there Yes but it needs constant maintenance. Choosing to keep repairing it in order for it to keep serving its current purpose (as a pathway exclusively for large motorised vehicles) might be the easiest option, but it's still a choice that has to be made. Undoubtedly the existence of buildings/residences/other infrastructure puts restraints on what you can do to redesign particular roads etc., but it doesn't make it impossible. And from what I recall, many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway.
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
    >many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway. Yes, however, it's not happening now. There are no more freeways being built in the city of Los Angeles. It's all just so silly to me. For example, you take a street like Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles. It's a large main artery within the city. It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Silver Lake district where it meets up with Sunset Blvd, which also goes from the Pacific Ocean to Downtown Los Angeles. So are you and others saying to completely disallow any cars at all on those main arteries? To turn them into one long bike path? So that all the cars have to go down the side streets and clog up all those side roads, which will definitely be infinitely worse for traffic? Or are you saying to ban cars altogether and not allow any cars to be used anywhere, for any purpose, and we go back to horse and carts? Right now, bicyclists can use the suburban side streets. Despite being in Los Angeles, the side streets are empty almost all of the time. I walk a lot and don't use the main arteries, but use the side streets. Hell, I walk right down the middle of these suburban side streets if I want, there are so few cars. Despite being Los Angeles, these LA suburban streets are the same as those in Lincoln Nebraska or Little Rock Arkansas, traffic-wise. Not in Downtown LA, of course, but that's the exception, not the rule. The downtown area is tiny compared to the city of LA. LA is completely filled with non-busy suburban streets. Go to Google maps and look yourself. It's the exact same with San Francisco or Sacramento or any other city. Not everywhere, not in the highest density of downtown areas. But people really are not specifying that they are only talking about those areas. They are talking about cities in general, the entire city, which is a LOT bigger than just the extreme downtown areas of any major city. I just fail to understand what the issue is. To me, it really isn't about bike paths or pedestrian paths or anything like that. That's just an excuse. The real reason is just to get rid of cars, to get rid of cars. If that's the case, just be honest about it.

by davidw 4y ago

At an individual level, helmet wearing makes sense, but at a societal level, designing infrastructure better is where it's at in terms of keeping people safe, and that's probably a far bigger win.

toast0 4y ago

As a sometimes frequent cyclist, I'm hoping a helmet is going to protect me from solo accidents more than car v bike; better bike infrastructure isn't going to help much with solo accidents (although it would eliminate trolley rail v bike, so there's one). Actually, if there was better infrastructure, I'd probably be able to travel at higher speed, and therefore have more danger in solo accidents. Making me ride on the shitty pavement at the edge of the road, and watch out for cars everywhere slows me down, and reduces my danger. :P In car v bike, a helmet may or may not help, I'm definitely going to lose, either way. Thankfully, I've never had a car v bike, but I've had plenty of solo crashes, although I think I've been lucky enough not to hit my head.

davidw 4y ago
> Making me ride on the shitty pavement at the edge of the road, and watch out for cars everywhere slows me down, and reduces my danger. :P Statistically, it does not.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> Actually, if there was better infrastructure, I'd probably be able to travel at higher speed, and therefore have more danger in solo accidents. That really doesn't happen in the Netherlands, however. I mean, ya, those grannies on bikes seem aggressive, but they aren't going very fast, Dutch bikers wearing suits are not like Americans bikers wearing spandex. Biking as a normalized transportation thing means speed isn't as common compared to biking as some kind of recreational sport.

FrontierPsych 4y ago

I never understood the whole "designing infrastructure better" thing. Most large cities are fully built out. You can't design infrastructure better as the infrastructure is already there. Maybe on brand new places being built, but that won't help Chicago or San Francisco or Los Angeles. You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side. It's the same with public transportation as well, especially light rail. To put in light rail in some cities, you would have to rip up tens of thousands of homes and businesses. I never did get this whole argument. It's like saying that you should make a better infrastructure for the human body. I for one, would like it if my anus would be right over my achilles tendon, that way if I shit my pants, it wouldn't dribble all down my leg, it would just be there on the ground already with minimum fuss.

wizofaus 4y ago
> the infrastructure is already there Yes but it needs constant maintenance. Choosing to keep repairing it in order for it to keep serving its current purpose (as a pathway exclusively for large motorised vehicles) might be the easiest option, but it's still a choice that has to be made. Undoubtedly the existence of buildings/residences/other infrastructure puts restraints on what you can do to redesign particular roads etc., but it doesn't make it impossible. And from what I recall, many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway.
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  >many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway. Yes, however, it's not happening now. There are no more freeways being built in the city of Los Angeles. It's all just so silly to me. For example, you take a street like Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles. It's a large main artery within the city. It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Silver Lake district where it meets up with Sunset Blvd, which also goes from the Pacific Ocean to Downtown Los Angeles. So are you and others saying to completely disallow any cars at all on those main arteries? To turn them into one long bike path? So that all the cars have to go down the side streets and clog up all those side roads, which will definitely be infinitely worse for traffic? Or are you saying to ban cars altogether and not allow any cars to be used anywhere, for any purpose, and we go back to horse and carts? Right now, bicyclists can use the suburban side streets. Despite being in Los Angeles, the side streets are empty almost all of the time. I walk a lot and don't use the main arteries, but use the side streets. Hell, I walk right down the middle of these suburban side streets if I want, there are so few cars. Despite being Los Angeles, these LA suburban streets are the same as those in Lincoln Nebraska or Little Rock Arkansas, traffic-wise. Not in Downtown LA, of course, but that's the exception, not the rule. The downtown area is tiny compared to the city of LA. LA is completely filled with non-busy suburban streets. Go to Google maps and look yourself. It's the exact same with San Francisco or Sacramento or any other city. Not everywhere, not in the highest density of downtown areas. But people really are not specifying that they are only talking about those areas. They are talking about cities in general, the entire city, which is a LOT bigger than just the extreme downtown areas of any major city. I just fail to understand what the issue is. To me, it really isn't about bike paths or pedestrian paths or anything like that. That's just an excuse. The real reason is just to get rid of cars, to get rid of cars. If that's the case, just be honest about it.