4 ms·

Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" d

Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" don't involve another road user. https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024_04_04_webinaire_cerema_presentation_onisr_accidentalite_a_velo.pdf https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024...

crote 1y ago
In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure? An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!
- Saline9515 1y ago
  Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere. And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).
  - andrewshadura 1y ago
    Why do you think a plumber requires a car and not, say, an electric cargo bicycle?
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?
      - gardnr 1y ago
        I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.
froddd 1y ago
The data you present does not say that: > 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué. 35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved. Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.
- Earw0rm 1y ago
  Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.
    - Earw0rm 1y ago
      It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed. OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces. 30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example). I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).
jenadine 1y ago
I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.

crote 1y ago

In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure? An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!

Saline9515 1y ago
Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere. And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).
- andrewshadura 1y ago
  Why do you think a plumber requires a car and not, say, an electric cargo bicycle?
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?
    - gardnr 1y ago
      I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.

froddd 1y ago

The data you present does not say that: > 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué. 35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved. Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.

Earw0rm 1y ago
Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.
- Saline9515 1y ago
  A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.
  - Earw0rm 1y ago
    It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed. OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces. 30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example). I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).

jenadine 1y ago

I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.