4 ms·

Getting hit by a motor vehicle will ruin your life. Getting hit by a bicycle will ruin your day, maybe week.

by op00to 3y ago

faeriechangling 3y ago
Cyclists are a legitimate danger to the elderly insofar that they can cause them to break their hip which can be a death sentence, and them breaking laws can cause drivers to panic and crash.
shermantanktop 3y ago
Should we rely on the individual’s belief about the level of harm they might cause when deciding whether to enforce the law when they break it?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
everforward 3y ago
It's not 0 risk; 12 pedestrians were killed by bicyclists in NYC in 2021 (I don't have more up to date data, there doesn't seem to be a ton out there). Cars killed 1,927 pedestrians in the same year. If we make a bold assumption that we can just scale those numbers by volumes, cars would have killed 100 people in the same period of there were as few drivers as bikers. I think cyclists underestimate the difference made by the force focusing effect of landing on a bar as opposed to the roof of a car, as well as that bicycles are basically flat in the front instead of sloped, so people can't slide over the top. If I could pick between getting hit by a Honda Civic at 20 mph or someone on a bike at 20 mph, I'm picking the Civic. Basically any car low enough that I can go over the top of, I'd rather get hit by that than a bike. I would rather get hit by a bike than an F-150, though. There's no way I'm going over that, I would definitely end up under it.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  I guess if you get hit by a bike (which is pretty unlikely, because bikes are slow and have good visibility), you probably hit it at an angle. So you're likely to get a handlebar hitting you, but there's not going to be much weight behind it, then the bike itself and person on it are going to sort of ragdoll into you, which sucks, but is probably better than getting hit by 2-tons * 15mph force. I mean, I would rather not be hit by either. But I think physics suggests it's probably better to be hit by the lighter object.
  - everforward 3y ago
    I suspect bike collisions are more common than car collisions, but generally less of an issue. I would imagine bikes only pose a substantial threat to a healthy person at the high end of their speed range. Pulling the handlebar causes the wheel to turn and redirect the solid center stalk at you. Perhaps not a direct hit, but enough that I don't think the bike will just glance off. > but is probably better than getting hit by 2-tons * 15mph force. I think you're presuming that both are eating the full force of the moving object. Most cars are designed to deflect things over the top of them rather than impart force into them, because doing so with air makes them aerodynamic. A car that just plowed into anything in front of it would have terrible aerodynamics. It just so happens that most objects behave similarly in front of a car. That sloped shape of the car (especially the windshield) imparts upward force. People that get hit by cars often land not far from where they were hit (relative to where you'd think), because most of the force is vertical. They're also a flat surface that is very good at dispersing the force over a lot of a body, instead of concentrating it. Bikes take the opposite approach, which is to conquer wind resistance by minimizing their exposure to it (I.e. being small). This makes for sharp, poorly dispersed impacts and a propensity to plow into things rather than push them over. They do have less relative energy, but it's conveyed into other objects in a much harsher way. This is all presuming similar speeds, though. The high end of a bicycle's speed range is right around the minimum speed cars even travel at.
    - pasabagi 3y ago
      > I suspect bike collisions are more common than car collisions You do? I was thinking the opposite: I've never hit anybody on my bike, I've never been hit by a bike, I've never seen nor heard of anybody being hit by a bike. How about you? I have absolutely hit a few cars, though. I figure that since you have to pay attention when cycling, otherwise you end on the ground, and speeds are relatively low, you're never really in danger of hitting someone. I had a close calls with a kid literally jumping out of a bush once, but that's it. Obviously, I'm not cycling on sidewalks, so in cities with crappy infrastructure, maybe it's more likely. Vis-a-vis the chance of injury: I think car bonnets have generally got higher in the last few years, but I think the main question is the weight. If you get hit by a bike, both you and the bike are going to bounce. If you get hit by a car, you're going to be doing basically all the bouncing. The energy of an impact is F = mv/2t. So mass is just as relevant as velocity. Regardless, the statistics bear this out: your stats showed that even if there were as few cars as there are bikes, they would still kill an order of magnitude more people. Perhaps this is because cars are much faster, perhaps this is because they hit more people, or injure them more when they do so, but I think in general if you're taking a purely objective, statistical view, every person who leaves their car in the garage and takes the bike instead makes everybody safer.

Getting hit by a motor vehicle will ruin your life. Getting hit by a bicycle will ruin your day, maybe week.

by op00to 3y ago

Getting hit by a motor vehicle will ruin your life. Getting hit by a bicycle will ruin your day, maybe week.

Cyclists are a legitimate danger to the elderly insofar that they can cause them to break their hip which can be a death sentence, and them breaking laws can cause drivers to panic and crash.

shermantanktop 3y ago

Should we rely on the individual’s belief about the level of harm they might cause when deciding whether to enforce the law when they break it?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

everforward 3y ago

It's not 0 risk; 12 pedestrians were killed by bicyclists in NYC in 2021 (I don't have more up to date data, there doesn't seem to be a ton out there). Cars killed 1,927 pedestrians in the same year. If we make a bold assumption that we can just scale those numbers by volumes, cars would have killed 100 people in the same period of there were as few drivers as bikers. I think cyclists underestimate the difference made by the force focusing effect of landing on a bar as opposed to the roof of a car, as well as that bicycles are basically flat in the front instead of sloped, so people can't slide over the top. If I could pick between getting hit by a Honda Civic at 20 mph or someone on a bike at 20 mph, I'm picking the Civic. Basically any car low enough that I can go over the top of, I'd rather get hit by that than a bike. I would rather get hit by a bike than an F-150, though. There's no way I'm going over that, I would definitely end up under it.

pasabagi 3y ago
I guess if you get hit by a bike (which is pretty unlikely, because bikes are slow and have good visibility), you probably hit it at an angle. So you're likely to get a handlebar hitting you, but there's not going to be much weight behind it, then the bike itself and person on it are going to sort of ragdoll into you, which sucks, but is probably better than getting hit by 2-tons * 15mph force. I mean, I would rather not be hit by either. But I think physics suggests it's probably better to be hit by the lighter object.
- everforward 3y ago
  I suspect bike collisions are more common than car collisions, but generally less of an issue. I would imagine bikes only pose a substantial threat to a healthy person at the high end of their speed range. Pulling the handlebar causes the wheel to turn and redirect the solid center stalk at you. Perhaps not a direct hit, but enough that I don't think the bike will just glance off. > but is probably better than getting hit by 2-tons * 15mph force. I think you're presuming that both are eating the full force of the moving object. Most cars are designed to deflect things over the top of them rather than impart force into them, because doing so with air makes them aerodynamic. A car that just plowed into anything in front of it would have terrible aerodynamics. It just so happens that most objects behave similarly in front of a car. That sloped shape of the car (especially the windshield) imparts upward force. People that get hit by cars often land not far from where they were hit (relative to where you'd think), because most of the force is vertical. They're also a flat surface that is very good at dispersing the force over a lot of a body, instead of concentrating it. Bikes take the opposite approach, which is to conquer wind resistance by minimizing their exposure to it (I.e. being small). This makes for sharp, poorly dispersed impacts and a propensity to plow into things rather than push them over. They do have less relative energy, but it's conveyed into other objects in a much harsher way. This is all presuming similar speeds, though. The high end of a bicycle's speed range is right around the minimum speed cars even travel at.
  - pasabagi 3y ago
    > I suspect bike collisions are more common than car collisions You do? I was thinking the opposite: I've never hit anybody on my bike, I've never been hit by a bike, I've never seen nor heard of anybody being hit by a bike. How about you? I have absolutely hit a few cars, though. I figure that since you have to pay attention when cycling, otherwise you end on the ground, and speeds are relatively low, you're never really in danger of hitting someone. I had a close calls with a kid literally jumping out of a bush once, but that's it. Obviously, I'm not cycling on sidewalks, so in cities with crappy infrastructure, maybe it's more likely. Vis-a-vis the chance of injury: I think car bonnets have generally got higher in the last few years, but I think the main question is the weight. If you get hit by a bike, both you and the bike are going to bounce. If you get hit by a car, you're going to be doing basically all the bouncing. The energy of an impact is F = mv/2t. So mass is just as relevant as velocity. Regardless, the statistics bear this out: your stats showed that even if there were as few cars as there are bikes, they would still kill an order of magnitude more people. Perhaps this is because cars are much faster, perhaps this is because they hit more people, or injure them more when they do so, but I think in general if you're taking a purely objective, statistical view, every person who leaves their car in the garage and takes the bike instead makes everybody safer.