Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread
We are avoiding the politics of cycling we would never get anywhere. Each to their own.
Why does cycling have a 'high' risk rating? or does it?
- Thread starter musa
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
We are avoiding the politics of cycling we would never get anywhere. Each to their own.
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
Perhaps the fear factor is related to our ability to be in control of the situation. Or maybe due to the control that others think we don't have?
When my beloved talks to me about road riding, it's the 'other people'- drivers etc that she fears. She's ridden with me enough to know I'm not just gonna fall off the thing.
When my beloved talks to me about road riding, it's the 'other people'- drivers etc that she fears. She's ridden with me enough to know I'm not just gonna fall off the thing.
You might want to rephrase that. As it stands I am failing to comprehend...
Nigel-YZ1
Guru
- Location
- Somewhere else... maybe soon.
I think the helmet thing is just a focal point for those who want us to be wrapped in cotton wool, but realise there ain't much else you can attach to us or a bike to make much difference.
Hey I wasn't starting a helmet debate! I Know
Are you trying to start a helmet debate?
Nooo far from it,
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Fear and something being dangerous are not connected as directly as we might think though.
One may experience the adrenaline rush of fear in almost complete safety. Which is why I, in the main, hate Disneyland et al. Synthetic fear in a situation of near perfect safety. MTB'ing in the Alps. Real danger, real consequences if it goes pear shaped, real fear, huge fun.
I am happy to put myself into fearful/dangerous situations through my making a(n informed) choice. I am not happy to find myself in a fearful/dangerous situation of another's creation (e.g. close pass).
It is rather like the mums, and others, who campaign against mobile phone masts, on the school playing fields and elsewhere, who mobilise their campaign by having conversations on mobile phones held right against their heads.
All about autonomy.
One may experience the adrenaline rush of fear in almost complete safety. Which is why I, in the main, hate Disneyland et al. Synthetic fear in a situation of near perfect safety. MTB'ing in the Alps. Real danger, real consequences if it goes pear shaped, real fear, huge fun.
I am happy to put myself into fearful/dangerous situations through my making a(n informed) choice. I am not happy to find myself in a fearful/dangerous situation of another's creation (e.g. close pass).
It is rather like the mums, and others, who campaign against mobile phone masts, on the school playing fields and elsewhere, who mobilise their campaign by having conversations on mobile phones held right against their heads.
All about autonomy.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
The irony is that most of the headline-grabbing deaths in pro cycling, eg Casartelli, Weylandt, tend to happen in circumstances where the significant factors are well outside the parameters for which helmets are designed to offer protection. Mauricio Soler was wearing a helmet when he crashed but again, the circumstances were well outside those for which a helmet is designed. Which is not to say that it definitely didn't help, just that it wasn't designed to help in those circumstances.
Even in the case of Kivilev, which was the main trigger for the introduction of compulsory helmet-wearing in the pro peloton, he was clearly travelling in excess of the 12.5mph* for which helmets are rated at the time of his accident. It would be impossible to prove either way whether or not a helmet would have made a difference.
Anyway, it would be ridiculous to argue that cycling generally isn't safe based on deaths in the pro peloton. They're high performance athletes pushing the limits of possibility. Of course they're going to have the occasional serious accident. But it's a big leap of the imagination from that to "cycling is dangerous [and helmets should be compulsory]". No one ever claimed that we should wear helmets in cars after Ayrton Senna's death.
To my mind, the real driving force in the rise of helmet wearing has been the fact that bike helmets are so much cheaper and lighter than they used to be. The safety argument, whether it has any merit or not, is somewhat post hoc. Maybe if the manufacturers started to produce (and heavily promote) lightweight "driving helmets", we'd see a similar uptake among car drivers.
d.
*Is that the right figure? Can't remember and can't be bothered to look it up.
Boris Bajic
Guest
1820565 said:
Sorry, I didn't think you were.
It was a Stalin-era self-accusation from me. My original mention of compensation was shameless trollery.
I realise that wasn't clear from my response.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Oh, I don't know - maybe add an extra couple of wheels for stability, maybe an airbag or two in your handlebars, and perhaps a steel frame to surround you. Of course, all this would add lots of extra weight to your bike, so you'd need some kind of motorised assistance if you wanted to get anywhere fast. And if you're doing that, you might as well add in a couple of extra seats for passengers to make more efficient use of space, and rather than panniers, you could have a special protected compartment at the rear for your stuff...
d.
And very skilled riders, every single last one of them. The amateur peloton is a whole different ballgame - 3rd and 4th cat races sometimes resemble A&E waiting rooms. I expect that amateur racing has a far higher injury rate than any other element of cycling - although I have no data to back this up
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Absolutely. Phenomenally skilful bike handlers, just as Senna was a phenomenally skilful car handler. I suppose the difference is that any of us could (in theory, if we had the money) ride exactly the same machines and wear exactly the same kit that the top pro cyclists use, which certainly isn't the case with F1 cars.
Accordingly, the perception (among non-cyclists) is that the gap between the pros riding the Tour de France and the "amateurs" cycling to work is much smaller than it actually is. And from that, the perception of the relative level of danger is bound to be skewed.
d.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I like your thinking, but it simply wouldn't catch on. People don't like to be enclosed like that - and if we allowed such vehicles to predominate we would also be encouraging a level of material snobbery that mankind simply doesn't go in for.
With that in mind, I've adapted your design proposal:
Reduce the number of wheels to two. Do away with the passengers and the luggage compartment. Chain drive to the rear wheel, powered by pedals.
Put the operator of this vehicle in a helmet and I think you'd find it was a perfectly safe way to get around.
Also completely free of snobbery... assuming nobody was foolish enough to ride the WRONG KIND of two-wheeled, pedal-powered vehicle.
Oh and points deducted for trying to to turn this into a helmet thread
Wasn't my intention at all, honest
Similar threads
