Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are gas prices fueling your pain? 
10042 messages, Last post on Jul 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: mattandi (Jun 03, 2008 6:58 am) You are right I am. I always am on the side of caution. You cannot be too careful riding a bike. Think about this. What if the EPA decided to force the bike manufacturers to make a bicycle as safe as they do cars? Why do I need airbags surrounding me in a car and nothing to protect me except a plastic helmet when riding a bike, sharing the same road?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 03, 2008 6:59 am) Read what I said: I said the times people on bikes were killed by drivers who (in YOUR WORDS) "were not in control of their car" was very low. There are no stats for that, but I stand by my estimate. Some of those biking deaths are not related to crashes with cars, and many of the injuries are not car-related either. From one of your posted links: As of 2002: Since 1932, 47,000 "pedalcyclists" have been killed. More than that die every SINGLE year in car crashes. Pedestrians are killed far far more than bikers. Of the total "people killed while on a roadway but not in a car" numbers, pedestrians make up about 85% to 87% in most recent years. The rest are bikers, roller bladers, skateboarders, etc. Nothing done on a road is without risk. I personally know far far many more people who have died in car crashes than in pedestrian or bike accidents. Don't you? UPDATE: I found some more current stats. In 2006, Arizona led the country in bikers killed per capita. 1.42 deaths per 1 million vehicle miles traveled. That's pretty darn low !! Now you see why I ride on the sidewalks !!!???!!!!!! Here is that page with some other good stats. AZ bike stats My point is: It's still far safer to bike that to walk. And far far fewer people die on bikes than in car wrecks. |
|
|
from helmets.org: "The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car." A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent. Anyone who rides a bike or a motorcycle is just being a FOOL if they do not don a helmet. |
|
|
|
Now if we could only get those cyclists to quit exhaling because that's causing global warming! 
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 03, 2008 7:12 am)  Promoting caution, or safety, and fear mongering are very different. The former is the more reasoned, rational, somewhat objective approach. The latter preys upon emotionalism and the lowest common denominator of fear. Methinks the latter is the more desirable way to accomplish a given goal. I'm willing to assume that your goal is for more safe transportation for all concerned. It would seem to me unreasonable to expect that any machine should be likewise safe as another machine of very different design. It would seem much more appropriate to make the operation of any given machine as safe as the operation of that machine can be. Ergo helmets and reflectors for bicycles, ABS and airbags for cars. See, things aren't dangerous. Bicycles aren't dangerous. Cars aren't dangerous. Not paying attention, exceeding posted speed limits, not adjusting to situations, circumstances, or environment, engaging in an activity while impaired or in the wrong frame of mind, those are dangerous. Unfortunately we cannot idiot-proof the world.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 03, 2008 7:32 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: ny540i6 (Jun 03, 2008 6:06 am) Yes, you should. But don't forget to compare the death and injury caused by the car pileup with that caused by the car/bicycle accident. Bikes don't have seat belts and airbags. I think the picture says it all. Bicyclists don't stand a chance against a car. Yes, accidents are rare, but it only takes one to ruin your life. Just ask Stephen King -- although, to be fair, he was walking when a car hit him, not biking. How many of us are willing to risk death or paralysis on a daily basis just to save money on gasoline? "Bicycles aren't dangerous. Cars aren't dangerous. Not paying attention, exceeding posted speed limits ..... those are dangerous." This statement is correct. However, it leaves out the salient point that a car driver's inattention causes danger TO a bicyclist; that is, even the most careful, attentive cyclist can't compensate for a distracted driver. The bike rider bears the consequences of other people's actions. Basically, when you ride a bicycle in traffic, you're saying, "I trust you with my life," to a bunch of strangers whizzing by you in 3,000 lb. chunks of steel. Again, how many of us are willing to do that? . |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Jun 03, 2008 12:05 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Jun 03, 2008 12:05 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Jun 03, 2008 12:05 pm) How many of us are willing to risk death or paralysis on a daily basis just to save money on gasoline? So based on this, walking is pretty darn risky too - so ban that. As to risking death or paralysis, just about everything you do once you get out of bed (including getting out of bed) increases your risk. And if you are serious about BOTH saving gasoline, AND reducing risk, then mass transit is the way to go. Freedom of choice is not a bad thing; as I said before, just about every activity comes with a cost/benefit ratio. If for you riding a bike carries too high a potential cost, then don't do it, however it is still a viable choice for many. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are gas prices fueling your pain?
