4 ms·

You don't have to go over the bars or go fast to get hurt. Back during my cycling days a teammate was out training on a quiet country road. He crossed wheels wh

by cleaver 12y ago

You don't have to go over the bars or go fast to get hurt. Back during my cycling days a teammate was out training on a quiet country road. He crossed wheels when a kid he was passing swerved. He hit his head, went into a coma and died two weeks later. While this was a competitive cyclist, he was riding solo and training for endurance—not terribly fast, nor anywhere near race pace. You could also be struck by a motorist. Granted, Dutch drivers are more aware of cyclists, but people still make mistakes.

revelation 12y ago
You could also trip in a staircase and die. I'd wager the outcomes are about equally likely. Why stop with a helmet? You should always wear knee protectors and any other amount of protective gear. Simply put, the helmet is a political device invoked to get rid of cyclists on public streets and mask the actual risk (cars, by many orders of magnitude, and not only to cyclists, but also pedestrians). As astute people have noticed, helmets are basically absent in countries that have sane city infrastructure transport design and dedicate just a fraction of the resources to making cycling possible for everyone. But we can't expect people to ask for that infrastructure when they don't even know what it should look like. You note "Dutch drivers are more aware of cyclists", missing the most important feature of Dutch infra: there is physical separation that makes the mistakes of human car drivers (universally useless) mostly riskless.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "the helmet is a political device invoked to get rid of cyclists on public streets" What?
  - asavadatti 12y ago
    Help! Help! I'm being repressed.
  - ciupicri 12y ago
    What the OP is probably trying to say is that politicians will push for mandatory helmet wearing, all in the name of safety. Some cyclists will comply, while others will stop riding altogether resulting in less cyclists on public streets.
- jdoliner 12y ago
  > You could also trip in a staircase and die. I'd wager the outcomes are about equally likely. This is actually quantifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort. According to this article. 6 miles by motorbike, 17 miles by walking 10 miles (or 20 miles, there seems to be disagreement) by bicycle and 230 miles by car are all approximately the same risk of death. Stairs isn't mentioned specifically. Also I think there's a pretty good argument for stopping with a helmet. I don't have any data but I strongly suspect that it's the single best thing you can do to decrease risk of death.
- cleaver 12y ago
  I don't care much for infrastructure that is separate from cars, unless it is completely separate. What I've seen in the USA is a sidewalk of sorts that is a few metres away from the road, but with driveways and access roads that cross the path without stop signs. The infrastructure I've seen in Amsterdam offered better, but not complete separation. (And again the awareness thing.) The one bicycle-car collision I was closest to (my friend was in front and was hit) was on this sort of bike path. His quick reaction put him on the hood of a truck instead of into the grill. As for helmet as oppression, I heard noise like that about 20 years ago. Damn gubmint! Next thing they'll take our guns!
kentbrew 12y ago
Scariest wreck I ever had: maybe two miles an hour on a bike path. Slipped in wet leaves, loud bang, bright flash, and the world was on its side. Later on I figured it out: even with the helmet on I'd hit hard enough to lose that little bit of time. Helmet, always, every time.

by cleaver 12y ago

revelation 12y ago

You could also trip in a staircase and die. I'd wager the outcomes are about equally likely. Why stop with a helmet? You should always wear knee protectors and any other amount of protective gear. Simply put, the helmet is a political device invoked to get rid of cyclists on public streets and mask the actual risk (cars, by many orders of magnitude, and not only to cyclists, but also pedestrians). As astute people have noticed, helmets are basically absent in countries that have sane city infrastructure transport design and dedicate just a fraction of the resources to making cycling possible for everyone. But we can't expect people to ask for that infrastructure when they don't even know what it should look like. You note "Dutch drivers are more aware of cyclists", missing the most important feature of Dutch infra: there is physical separation that makes the mistakes of human car drivers (universally useless) mostly riskless.

dllthomas 12y ago
"the helmet is a political device invoked to get rid of cyclists on public streets" What?
- asavadatti 12y ago
  Help! Help! I'm being repressed.
- ciupicri 12y ago
  What the OP is probably trying to say is that politicians will push for mandatory helmet wearing, all in the name of safety. Some cyclists will comply, while others will stop riding altogether resulting in less cyclists on public streets.
jdoliner 12y ago
> You could also trip in a staircase and die. I'd wager the outcomes are about equally likely. This is actually quantifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort. According to this article. 6 miles by motorbike, 17 miles by walking 10 miles (or 20 miles, there seems to be disagreement) by bicycle and 230 miles by car are all approximately the same risk of death. Stairs isn't mentioned specifically. Also I think there's a pretty good argument for stopping with a helmet. I don't have any data but I strongly suspect that it's the single best thing you can do to decrease risk of death.
cleaver 12y ago
I don't care much for infrastructure that is separate from cars, unless it is completely separate. What I've seen in the USA is a sidewalk of sorts that is a few metres away from the road, but with driveways and access roads that cross the path without stop signs. The infrastructure I've seen in Amsterdam offered better, but not complete separation. (And again the awareness thing.) The one bicycle-car collision I was closest to (my friend was in front and was hit) was on this sort of bike path. His quick reaction put him on the hood of a truck instead of into the grill. As for helmet as oppression, I heard noise like that about 20 years ago. Damn gubmint! Next thing they'll take our guns!

kentbrew 12y ago

Scariest wreck I ever had: maybe two miles an hour on a bike path. Slipped in wet leaves, loud bang, bright flash, and the world was on its side. Later on I figured it out: even with the helmet on I'd hit hard enough to lose that little bit of time. Helmet, always, every time.