3 ms·

That's curious, seeing how motorcyclists are much more frequently seriously injured, and more often as the result of their own actions. I'm not sure there is mu

That's curious, seeing how motorcyclists are much more frequently seriously injured, and more often as the result of their own actions. I'm not sure there is much to emulate here.

bmitc 4y ago
I'm thinking in a city environment. Motorcyclists ride in much more varied environments at much higher speeds with the other vehicles at higher speeds. Motorcycling is very dangerous, period. But in city riding, motorcycles, cars, and bicycles are effectively bound to the same speed limits, such as between 0-45mph. Obviously, bicycles will be slower at the top end, but for the most part in congested city riding, all three vehicles will be within some range of each other. In my experience and observations, the common motorcyclist will still be far better equipped in safety equipment, including helmets, gloves, jackets, boots, etc. despite having superior protection from the motorcycle itself compared to a bicycle, breaks, and acceleration. And also in my experience, bicyclists are much more willing to break traffic laws in city environments. Maybe the comparison isn't appropriate or too heavily biased with my own safety approaches and experience, but in my experience with serious motorcyclists, anything less than a full-face helmet is viewed as complete folly. The highest percentage of hit in a motorcycle crash is in the front. (There is a famous safety graphic that shows the percentages of where on the helmet a crash occurs.) If I decided to start riding bicycles again, on the street or elsewhere, a helmet will absolutely be used, and I would even consider going further than the typical bicycle helmet. My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. > and more often as the result of their own actions That is not a blanket truth.
- scatters 4y ago
  The majority of head injuries cycling are to the side, from falling at low speed. Certainly if someone is going at 30mph or above they should be wearing a helmet. But only a minority of cyclists will ever get anywhere near that speed. > I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. It comes down to convenience. Driving has to contend with congestion and parking, public transport with schedules and stops, cycling with bad drivers and maybe weather. Adding one more inconvenience can swing the balance towards another transport mode.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  > My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. I certainly wouldn't ride a bike if a helmet would be mandatory. Or I would just ignore the law. I can't see something like this flying in the Netherlands where I'm from. Most people will feel the same as me. It's not just the inconvenience, it's also a matter of pride. But in the Netherlands biking is very safe. Bike lanes are everywhere and have separate crossings. Motorists are always blamed even if they didn't cause an accident with a bike (because a cyclist won't have insurance) so I think it's safe enough. I've fallen many times in single-vehicle accidents due to slippery ice or wet leaves and my arm was always under my head due to my reflexes. I understand that cycling is not as safe in the US but perhaps making it so would be a better priority.

That's curious, seeing how motorcyclists are much more frequently seriously injured, and more often as the result of their own actions. I'm not sure there is much to emulate here.

bmitc 4y ago

I'm thinking in a city environment. Motorcyclists ride in much more varied environments at much higher speeds with the other vehicles at higher speeds. Motorcycling is very dangerous, period. But in city riding, motorcycles, cars, and bicycles are effectively bound to the same speed limits, such as between 0-45mph. Obviously, bicycles will be slower at the top end, but for the most part in congested city riding, all three vehicles will be within some range of each other. In my experience and observations, the common motorcyclist will still be far better equipped in safety equipment, including helmets, gloves, jackets, boots, etc. despite having superior protection from the motorcycle itself compared to a bicycle, breaks, and acceleration. And also in my experience, bicyclists are much more willing to break traffic laws in city environments. Maybe the comparison isn't appropriate or too heavily biased with my own safety approaches and experience, but in my experience with serious motorcyclists, anything less than a full-face helmet is viewed as complete folly. The highest percentage of hit in a motorcycle crash is in the front. (There is a famous safety graphic that shows the percentages of where on the helmet a crash occurs.) If I decided to start riding bicycles again, on the street or elsewhere, a helmet will absolutely be used, and I would even consider going further than the typical bicycle helmet. My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. > and more often as the result of their own actions That is not a blanket truth.

scatters 4y ago
The majority of head injuries cycling are to the side, from falling at low speed. Certainly if someone is going at 30mph or above they should be wearing a helmet. But only a minority of cyclists will ever get anywhere near that speed. > I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. It comes down to convenience. Driving has to contend with congestion and parking, public transport with schedules and stops, cycling with bad drivers and maybe weather. Adding one more inconvenience can swing the balance towards another transport mode.
wkat4242 4y ago
> My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required. I certainly wouldn't ride a bike if a helmet would be mandatory. Or I would just ignore the law. I can't see something like this flying in the Netherlands where I'm from. Most people will feel the same as me. It's not just the inconvenience, it's also a matter of pride. But in the Netherlands biking is very safe. Bike lanes are everywhere and have separate crossings. Motorists are always blamed even if they didn't cause an accident with a bike (because a cyclist won't have insurance) so I think it's safe enough. I've fallen many times in single-vehicle accidents due to slippery ice or wet leaves and my arm was always under my head due to my reflexes. I understand that cycling is not as safe in the US but perhaps making it so would be a better priority.