Originally Posted by
Roughstuff
Safety morphs into helmets...helmets morph into safety. Both miss the point. A bicycle is an inherently more dangerous vehicle on the roadway because the rider is perched, somewhat precariously, on top of the vehicle as he rides it...instead of contained, confined, and protected by its shell. The same can be said for motorcycles.
In addition vehicles have 4 or more wheels in two parallel alignments (with respect to the roadway). If motorists sat on their rooftops and steered with their feet, automobiles would be far more dangerous to ride.
I do NOT support madatory helmet laws. If a helmet improves safety it should sell itself (which is why I wear one.) If it does not, of if a rider is willing to bear the supposed incremental risk for some other reason, I have complete respect for their willingness to do so.
roughstuff
Yeah, maybe a bike isn't as stable as a car, but a bicycle travels at far lower speeds and with far less mass, so if there is an added danger, it is generally one of falling from relatively low elevation at a relatively low speed.
Cuts and scrapes to be sure, but "serious" injury? Well, that might be more a matter of being hit by an automobile.
Still, even with a possible elevation of risk of superficial injury that harms well being when riding a bike, one would have to consider the improvements to well being as a result of riding a bike. There's no doubt health improves from the inherent nature of progressing a bike.
So...on a bike...bumps and scrapes? Check. Longer life? Check.
In spite of the greater stability of automobiles, I'd say they are the more dangerous vehicle because their impact can kill much more often and health decreases the more time one spends in them