wphamilton

If I have your question wrong feel free to elaborate. I think you want to map the type of bicycle to types of uses, each having varying levels of risk. At least, a road bike which encourages fast riding, vs some other bike ridden more slowly.

I don't think that's going to work very well. For one, we simply don't have the data captured regarding what kind of bike was used in accidents. Without data we're only speculating.

That said, there is a another variable: how the bike is used. The fast road bike may be ridden identically to the cruiser, perhaps on a sidewalk at 6 mph. Or someone can take his hybrid on the road, running reds at 20 mph. It is reasonable that the choice of riding has more impact in the chances of the accident that the choice of the particular bike.

Well, I think that you're saying: someone chooses a race bike, it makes him want to ride faster, so he does, and that increases his risk of injury. Then a bike that wouldn't let him ride that fast would be safer. That seems reasonable, but the question is "is it true?" We have no data specifically relating bicycle speed (on the streets) to injury rates. MV speeds yes, but bicycle speeds none that I'm aware of. We do have some data which suggests that higher relative speeds increases the chance of collisions and injury, but a faster bike would reduce relative speeds.

Consider also that if actual use tracks the intended use of bicycles, then that injects other variables. Race bikes are primarily ridden by racers, triathletes, people who ride in groups and train. I can't say that this is completely true, but it seems reasonable doesn't it? These types of individuals are more likely to spend more time training on the bikes, concentrating on specific road skills, and consequently be more skilled than a rider who, not having a race bike does not engage in those activities. So even if we did have the data, it would likely show that the racing bike was safer since skilled riders would have fewer incidents, even if the racing bike itself was less safe.

Finally, in passing let's look at "As speed of that cycle's category, affects the impact of fall." This is actually a bit more complicated than it appears at first look. Strictly speaking, the bike's horizontal speed does not affect the impact of the fall, which is vertical. That's on a perfectly flat, smooth road. In actuality if the road is sloped up then the speed does affect it. If there are bumps or curbs, basically anything you would bang against that's another exception. And of course a rough surface leads to abrasions and potentially rotational injuries, but that's not strictly "impact". And additionally, in my own experience the high speed falls lead to more bouncing and tumbling, more time against the ground and hitting the ground which does hurt more, but the initial force of impact - on flat and level - is similar for low speed and high speed falls. So you may need to re-calibrate your idea with this in mind.

I-Like-To-Bike

Only if vehicles involved in the collision are traveling in the same direction.

Not true when a "fast bike" collides with a stationary object such as an opened car door, or collides with a vehicle pulling out or turning left in front of the fast bike. I suspect bikes being ridden fast may be especially vulnerable to just these type of collisions due to driver miscalculation of a "fast bike's" actual speed.

wphamilton

Yep, the bike speed is a factor for impact when colliding with any vertical object.

Additionally, njkayaker believes that a car-bike collision will throw the cyclist up or down, increasing the vertical velocity. I believe that scenario to be an extreme case.

Whether a "fast bike" is more vulnerable to right/left hooks or cars pulling out, is speculative at this point. You certainly have less reaction/stopping time at 25 mph than at 15 mph, but whether that difference is enough to translate into more of those types of collisions is unknown to me. I'd like to see the data if you know of it.

OldTryGuy

Fast bikes being ridden fast and bunches of professional riders just went down, TdeF, HARD!!!

I wonder if any of the riders wish they really weren't wearing a helmet???

rydabent

Hmmm------it looks like the anti helmet usual suspects want to ignore this fact. The bad thing about it is that when the press always reports if the cyclist victim was wearing a helmet, it gives the driving public at large the idea they cyclist have a death wish, which in my case is totally false.

wphamilton

I reckon that any time you hit the ground you're glad to have the helmet.

What molton was asking - I think - was would they have been less likely to need the helmet if they were riding hybrids?

mconlonx

I learned a new word the other day: fustian.

MMACH 5

I had to look that one up. It's a perfect description of the recent helmet thread goings-on.

CarinusMalmari

Yet you are the one that's moaning an b****ing when the mods don't interfere when I'm not nice to you. funny how that works.

Let's not bring up stereotypes of Americans and how you fit them. Nothing good will come of it, I believe. Also one doesn't really need bravery to engage in an internet sh/t-flinging contest , just bad taste. In this specific case too much bad taste for my liking. Which says more about you than about the quality of my taste, I'm afraid, btw.

But as luck would have it, this is a good place as any to elaborate on the time when you "lived in Amsterdam many years ago". I'm still waiting for that one.

CarinusMalmari

Darwin Award Mongering Organ Donors™ I believe....

Dannihilator

Ok, it has been mentioned before.

Please keep the personal stuff out of this.

Siu Blue Wind

We've had some clean up here. Tiglath, please leave this thread. Thank you.

rydabent

When you look at it logically, in the end cyclist will get sorted out. Most of those wearing helmets will still be around with all their faculties, and some of those that dont wear helmets wont. It your choice.

mconlonx

When you look at it logically, in the end each cyclist will get sorted out. Most of those that don't wear helmets will still be around with all their faculties, and some of those that do wear helmets wont. It your choice.

rydabent

I agree with your tag line.

mconlonx

You resemble my tag line...

Brklynbomber

So growing up never really wore a helmet riding my gt bmx , went through a handful of bikes and never wore any gear. I been through my share of crashes scraped knees elbows , flipped a couple of times due to crazy neighborhood friends getting something caught in my wheels but knock on wood never hurt my head.It was when I started riding trails that I took things seriously and wear a helmet , I wore a lot of gear when I would go to Diablo mountain with friends . I would always see someone there with a broken arm or leg so even though there head was ok I learned something , you can alway fix a broken arm,leg,finger, but if you hit your head hard enough your either a vegi or sometimes dead .bottom line better be safe then sorry cause it doesn't have to be your fault getting into an accident but it's on you to protect your noggin

WarrenR

Here's a video showing a helmet at work, I couldn't believe that he got up and finished the race and although he lost some time he didn't lose his current position. His head appears to take quite a shot into the pole. Also I never thought a helmet would help much in this type of impact as it's the side of the helmet that looks to take the impact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q0eWT16IQY

rydabent

Even the pros crash. But apparently not the super bikers that post here about how they hate helments!!!

OldTryGuy

Not much different than impacting the side on the pavement or curb or......been there and done it.

I will go out on a limb in the above case and say....no helmet = concussion

CarinusMalmari

Going out on a limb indeed, since even with HD footage of the crash it's not a all clear how his head connects to the pole. or even if it happens at all. You mainly proof that helmeteers don't need fact to work with when they try to justify their beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOrPrjMngk

mr_bill

Yeah, you mainly proof of, well, denial.

-mr. bill

phat ham

well to be fair most cyclists probably don't take the same risks or ride as fast as the pros do.

CarinusMalmari

I didn't study the accident, I just looked up something better than the original vid which was of rather ****ty quality so I could see more than a blur. I must also mention that the video on it's own was claimed to be evidence for the head-saving qualities of helmets, which it really wasn't, so it's not that strange I solely based myself on that video.

But anyway, so we now know his head indeedc onnected with the pole, but still most of my statement still stands.

Also note the conspicuous absence of reference to the life-saving qualities of helmets.

rydabent

While that may be true to a certain extent, there is always the unexpected, such as a flat that throws you on the ground, or a car that runs a red light.

No matter what a fantastic bike handler your are there is always the the unexpected like an instant flat, or a car running a red light, or right hooking you.